Sitting of 17 October 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SAINT PAUL'S CHURCHYARD BILL
    As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Class Sizes
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of primary school children being taught in classes of over 30 in the current academic year. [35990]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Figures for the current academic year are not available.
    Mrs. Jackson: Figures for the current academic year are available in my constituency, because I have contacted every primary school head teacher. They show that children in 96 out of 187 primary school classes—more than 50 per cent. of them—will start the school year in classes of 30 or more. Will the Secretary of State say whether she believes that there is a link between the quality of education offered and the size of a primary school class? If she agrees that there is a link, what will she do about it—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We are not in debate; this is Question Time.
    Mrs. Shephard: I have said often enough in this House that I accept that a very large class may be difficult for a teacher to manage. The chief inspector of schools, however, consistently reports no link between class size and attainment. He also consistently reports that what matters is the quality of teaching. That is why I greatly welcome the recent conversion of Opposition Members to supporting improved standards in schools, despite their voting record of having opposed every measure to improve standards of the past 16 years.
    Mr. Alison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that overcrowded school premises can inhibit a school's
    128
    excellence as much as overcrowded classes? Will she look with special sympathy at proposals, soon to reach her, to rebuild or expand Monk Fryston Church of England primary school in my constituency? Built for 44 children, it is now crammed with 126 of them, in more temporary classrooms than original classrooms. Will she do her best to help that marvellous school move into a more expansive phase?
    Mrs. Shephard: My right hon. Friend has been consistently assiduous in pressing the case for a capital allocation to Monk Fryston school, and I am grateful to him. I understand that the North Yorkshire local education authority has included an element for the school in this year's capital bid. Clearly I can give my right hon. Friend no more reassurance than to say that I will judge any such bid against our criteria to ensure that resources are fairly distributed.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If it is acceptable for primary schools to have classes of more than 30, why is it not acceptable for preparatory schools—the junior equivalents of public schools—to which the rich can send their children? Why should those schools be able to have 15 in a class while numbers in the state sector are double that? Does it not show that the Government are interested only in privilege in education?
    Mrs. Shephard: On the contrary, we believe in choice, and in choice for everyone. The Opposition believe in choice for their Front Benchers and a firm march back to the 1960s for everyone else.

    Literacy and Numeracy
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in improving literacy and numeracy in schools. [45991]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): Raising standards of literacy and numeracy is at the heart of our school reforms. The chief inspector of schools has confirmed that our reforms are improving the quality of education.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that literacy and numeracy are still the keys to success in later life for young people? In that context, what steps does her Department propose to take further to improve standards of reading, writing and speaking English, and of adding and subtracting numbers?
    Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right. Only last week, we set out new measures for raising standards of written and spoken English in schools and the workplace across the country. Communication skills are vital for career prospects and the Government's initiatives on spoken English qualifications emanate from discussions and consultations with a wide range of people, including business, the media, unions, voluntary bodies and educators. We are delighted that Trevor McDonald has agreed to chair the steering group and we look forward to developments in this sector.
    Mr. Marek: The Minister will know that class sizes in public and preparatory schools are on average half as

    129
    small as those in state schools. Will she make a connection between class sizes and achieving higher standards in numeracy and literacy?
    Mrs. Gillan: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is inviting me down a route that I should not care to follow, but the House should know that Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has confirmed that, notably, the national curriculum and testing are already helping to raise overall education standards, and we can expect a steady rise in standards as more pupils benefit from our reforms.

    Nursery Education
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a further statement about her plans for the expansion of nursery education. [35992]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I am delighted to announce that Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster have confirmed their decision to take part in the first phase of the voucher scheme, beginning in April 1996. Others are considering the issue and I hope to be able to add to that list in the near future.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when he has completed his consultation exercise on quality assurance he will promote a policy of good education, good quality and good value for money?
    Mr. Squire: I most certainly confirm what my hon. Friend seeks. The aim of the scheme, which will apply to every local education authority from April 1997, is to ensure the quality of education delivered to pre-fives and to extend the opportunity of nursery education to all four-year-olds who do not have it.
    Mr. Don Foster: Given the recent debate about levels of crime, does the Minister agree that a proven connection exists between high-quality, early-years education and lowering juvenile crime? If he does, would it not have been better to introduce a system of proper, high-quality, early-years education for all three and four-year-olds instead of the cumbersome and bureaucratic voucher system?
    Mr. Squire: I think that I can say no to most of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am prepared to concede that one of the many elements claimed for early school education is that it may reduce subsequent delinquency.
    I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman about vouchers. only vouchers will give parents choice in their child's pre-school education, including parents who may have only one opportunity. Secondly—I do not wish to outstay my welcome, Madam Speaker—any money channelled through block grants to local authorities is by no means guaranteed to be spent on the sector that he has identified.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend share my regret that Essex county council appears, as a matter of policy, to have refused even to take part in the trials that we have initiated?
    Mr. Squire: I have been disappointed by the response of a number of local education authorities, all of which have been invited to take part and all of which, by
    130
    definition, will have four-year-olds whose parents will be unable to secure pre-school education for their child. They would have had a better chance of doing so if they had been in phase one, so I share my hon. Friend's dismay.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Given the Secretary of State's failure to involve a nationally representative cross-section of authorities in the pilot scheme and her further failure to set clear targets for access to nursery education for three and four-year-olds, will the Minister tell us which agency is being charged with looking after the voucher scheme?
    Mr. Squire: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, he will have to wait but a short while longer for the announcement to be made.
    On the central issues, the hon. Gentleman will have to recognise that some authorities are not taking part because they have been misled by him and others and have been persuaded to give first priority not to parents but to political dogma.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the chief attractions to parents of four-year-olds of the new plan to expand nursery education is that no less than £185 million of entirely new money is being added to the education budget for that? Will he confirm that there is great enthusiasm for the provision of nursery education and for the expansion of choice and diversity? Will he join me in paying tribute to the expansion of the education provision in playgroups run by the Pre-School Playgroups Association?
    Mr. Squire: I willingly confirm the figure quoted by my hon. Friend and, like him, I welcome developments within the Pre-School Alliance. The large number of letters to the Department from parents who want to know why their authority is not taking part from 1996 shows that both Opposition parties are risking considerable unpopularity.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of men aged (a) 55 to 59 and (b) 60 to 65 years are in employment. [35993]
    Mrs. Gillan: At spring 1995, the proportion of men aged 55 to 59 in employment was 66.3 per cent. and 40.8 per cent. for those aged 60 to 65 years.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister agree that the fact that one in three men in their late fifties is out of work represents a huge waste of human potential and is bad news for the economy? Is it right that so many men who are still relatively young are thrown on to a human scrapheap? Do the Government have any proposals to get Britain back to work?
    Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman should know that all age groups have benefited from the expansion of employment opportunities under this Government and that the fastest growth has been among those over 50. Among men aged 50 to 59, 66.3 per cent. are in employment, compared with the EC average of 63 per cent. Among men aged 60 to 64, the 45 per cent. figure compares with an EC average of 31 per cent. I am continuing my campaign to assist older workers to realise their potential and to play a full part in the labour market in a way that

    131
    meets their needs and those of employers. The Government are taking action today. We are not just talking about promises of legislation way into the future which will not deal with the current problem.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: As someone who this very day has crossed the threshold between the two age groups mentioned in the question, my hon. Friend will understand that I am taking an increasing interest in tackling the problems of agism. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent initiative. May I suggest that it is far better to tackle the problem through her friendly persuasion rather than attempting to do so by legislation?
    Mrs. Gillan: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday. He is only halfway there since we know that Madame Calment in France has achieved the great age of 120 years and 238 days. My hon. Friend has a long way to go.
    During the recess I was able to make three new announcements on our campaign for older workers. First, I announced a new booklet targeted at recruitment agencies, which will be published before Christmas. Secondly—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow such long answers to questions, particularly since the hon. Lady seems to be making a statement. Questions and answers are becoming longer and we are not making the progress On which I insist. Will the hon. Lady complete her answer?
    Mrs. Gillan: First, there is to be a new booklet aimed at recruitment agencies; secondly, advice will be given to recruitment advertising agencies; and thirdly, the undertaking of a comprehensive survey—
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Ms Harman: Does the Minister agree that unfairness and discrimination should have no place in today's world of work? Does she further agree that it is wrong to sack someone or to reject a job application solely on the ground of age? If so, why will not she take the simple step of making age discrimination in employment unlawful?
    Mrs. Gillan: I shall not take lectures from the hon. Lady on this subject. Her policies are full of rhetoric. I have referred to three measures that I announced earlier this year, which propose positive steps to counteract the problems now, rather than talking about vague promises of what may be done in future.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the kernel of her answer is the figures for other European countries? Would not the adoption of the social chapter and a national minimum wage increase the number of old people out of work in the same way as it would increase youth unemployment?
    Mrs. Gillan: Yes.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many three and four-year-olds started in nursery schools this September. [35994]
    Mr. Robin Squire: Information about the number of three and four-year-olds in school is collected centrally in January. Provisional figures show that in January 1995, 52,600 three and four-year-olds were in maintained nursery schools.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that many parents of three and four-year-olds would like their children to be in nursery school, but are denied places? Did not even Lady Thatcher, back in 1972, commit the Conservative party to providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds? Is not it a tragedy that, 23 years later, that has not been achieved? The Government are producing a smokescreen of vouchers to cover up the fact that they are not prepared to carry out even Lady Thatcher's commitment.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman echoes others on the Opposition Benches in not being keen on parental choice, but that is no surprise to us. The answer to the substance of his question is: let us get universal provision for four-year-olds up and running properly, after which we can consider other aspects. The hon. Gentleman and his party are very free with spending commitments from time to time. The Government have made a firm commitment on four-year-olds and we will stick by it.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Is my hon. Friend aware that within one day of the announcement of the voucher scheme, Liberal-controlled Dorset county council arbitrarily said that it wanted nothing to do with it? Since then it has been havering in its decision. Will he undertake to give the council as long as possible to decide one way or the other? If it does not decide to join the pilot scheme, when my hon. Friend comes to Dorset on 27 October will he lay the blame fairly and squarely on the council for not consulting governors and head teachers?
    Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend and the House know, because of the current legislative position the Government were required to ask for volunteers. Provided that my hon. Friend races from the Chamber at the appropriate time, contacts his local authority and makes it clear that it must act quickly, it could still be brought into phase one. It will, like all other authorities, be brought into phase two, but that will be too late for the parents of four-year-olds in the coming year.

    Teachers' Pensions Agency
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Teachers' Pensions Agency. [35995]
    Mr. Robin Squire: We invited expressions of interest in June for a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme. We are now considering whether to invite certain companies to tender for a contract. We expect to inform the House of our conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Milburn: Does the Minister accept that if privatisation of the agency's functions goes ahead, it will not only threaten one of Darlington's key employers but will undermine the impartial pensions service currently received by more than 1 million teachers in this country? Will he explain to the House why, despite meeting all the targets set for them by Ministers, hard-working staff at the agency were denied the right to bid against private competitors to run the service? What assurances can he

    133
    now give both the staff at the agency and those directly employed by his Department in Darlington about their future job prospects?
    Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, considerable discussions have been held, including those that I had with staff, and I fully understand that uncertainty is alarming some members of staff. In fairness, as I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises, whether or not we finally decide that the scheme could be contractorised, there will still be—even in the public sector if it remains in the public sector—a need to find further efficiency savings.
    I see no reason why the management of the scheme—of course, there is no fund as such—should in any way jeopardise pensions or in any way lead to a lower standard of service. Indeed, one of the requirements that we would make if we proceeded would be that service should be at least as good as, if not better than, at present.
    Mr. Devlin: I applaud the Minister for seeking savings on behalf of the taxpayer, but I remind him that the superannuation scheme is highly complex. It would be prudent if we were at least to allow the work force an opportunity to meet targets and to provide the service in competition with the private sector.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend's concerns—no doubt some of his constituents work at the agency—are well noted. As I made clear in my main answer, although at this stage I cannot announce whether we shall move out to the private sector, it should be stressed for the benefit of the House and for those who are expressing concern that the Darlington office has considerable attractions. We are advised that existing staff would transfer to any future contractor under legislation, and there would self-evidently be an advantage of continuity if another private sector body were brought in to administer the scheme from the same site.

    Industrial Links
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the Government are doing to encourage links between schools and industry. [35996]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government continue to promote a wide range of activities, both departmentally and with other organisations, aimed at developing closer links between schools and industry.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the support that British Aerospace gives schools in my part of Lancashire sets an example that should be followed by other firms? Will she do all that she can to encourage other firms to do precisely that?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am aware that British Aerospace, in backing the setting up of technology colleges, is giving a great deal of support to this area of educational work. Although I am absolutely delighted by British Aerospace's commitment, 200 industrial sponsors are backing 101 technology colleges and six language colleges which have been approved. Their support amounts to £11 million of sponsorship.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Has the Minister looked at the recent health and safety statistics on accidents at work, which
    134
    show an increase in accidents in manufacturing industry among school-age children? When will the Government act to enforce the law to end the scandal of 1.5 million school-age children working illegally in Britain?
    Mrs. Shephard: The Government cannot condone any kind of illegal practices in employment. If the hon. Lady would like to send me details, they will be looked at.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers benefit just as much as pupils from links with industry?
    Mrs. Shephard: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. More than 160,000 teachers have taken industry placements since 1989.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Given that both schools and colleges are involved in providing academic and vocational training, does the Minister agree that we need a new partnership—not competition—between schools, colleges of further education, training and enterprise councils and industry so that they can provide the best quality of training for 16 to 18-year-olds in a highly competitive job environment? If extra resources are necessary to deliver that partnership, will she make them available?
    Mrs. Shephard: I shall not make any promises today on extra public expenditure, but the hon. Gentleman is right. There should be a productive partnership between training and enterprise councils, colleges and schools in given areas. Occasionally that spills over into extremely fierce competition, which usually results in benefits for the young people involved, but a careful eye must be kept on it.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has undertaken on the effect of class size on education standards. [35998]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We continue to monitor research on Ofsted evidence in this area.
    Mr. Khabra: The Minister has given a very unsatisfactory reply. May I draw her attention to the comments of Duncan Graham, the former chairman and chief executive of the National Curriculum Council, who is reported in the press as saying that
    "the national curriculum could not be delivered properly in classes of more than 35 and children in groups of 40 and over were 'getting a raw deal"?
    We are already nearly 10,000 teachers short of the number required to maintain class sizes. Will the Minister deal with these fundamental questions? I should like a positive response.
    Mrs. Shephard: Classes are not too large to deliver the national curriculum effectively. That is not only my view but that of the chief inspector. Clearly, the national curriculum is now slimmer than it was when Mr. Graham was chairman of the National Curriculum Council. I repeat that the quality of teaching depends on the quality of teachers, not class size.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's education reforms have done much to

    135
    improve the quality and standard of state education? Does she agree, however, that an increase in class sizes may jeopardise those reforms? May I therefore ask her to redouble her efforts to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to fund in full the next teachers' pay award?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is an inspiration and support, as always. He will know that at this time of year it is normal for members of the Cabinet to be engaged in vigorous debate.
    Mr. Blunkett: It sounds as though we have another convert on our hands.
    Does the Secretary of State agree that when the Deputy Prime Minister said last week that it was necessary to allow 60,000 children to "escape", as he put it, from the inadequacy of inner-city education, he was making the biggest indictment possible of 16 years of Conservative government? If £220 million is available, should not it go to lowering class sizes for 1.5 million children in infant schools or 7 million children in our state system, not merely to allowing 60,000 children to escape Tory incompetence?
    Mrs. Shephard: It really is time that Labour Members stopped perpetuating the fiction that they are remotely interested in raising standards in our schools. They have consistently opposed every standard-raising measure that has gone through the House. The opposition of Labour Members to choice, diversity of provision and excellence is well known and well documented; so is their principal motivation of class envy. All those factors are well illustrated in their desire to end the assisted places scheme, which provides real opportunities for children from poorer families. Sadly, the Labour party is the enemy of aspiration.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite all the huffing and puffing by the Labour party, pupil-teacher ratios have fallen substantially—from 19:1 to 18:1—since it was in office, that over the same period the number of support staff in our schools has vastly increased, and that how classes are organised within that ratio is entirely a matter for the head teacher?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right, as always. Class size statistics tell us nothing about how teachers now work and how pupils learn.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, irrespective of class sizes, the class teacher's ability to identify through early assessment the special needs of individual children, and the provision of individual help, will play a major part in raising standards?
    Mrs. Shephard: Indeed, assessment and testing at all stages throughout a pupil's career are extremely important, and our nursery initiative will enable us to examine carefully what children can achieve when they reach primary school.
    Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Education Select Committee visited Japan it found that in some subjects standards were higher than in this country, yet that class sizes were invariably much higher than in this country? Does she not conclude from that evidence that it is the quality of teaching and the involvement of
    136
    parents that dictates achievement and outcome, and that those are the areas that we should address most aggressively?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I am happy that the Select Committee's visit to Japan confirmed my conviction that it is the quality of teaching that matters.

    School Budgets
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the level of school budgets in 1996–97. [35999]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Funding for schools in 1996–97 is currently under consideration in the public expenditure survey. As part of that process, my right hon. Friend has received the views of the local authority associations and other interested parties.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister listen carefully, especially to the views of parents? Does he understand their concerns and will he respond positively to them? Does he realise that parents in, say, Nottinghamshire are alarmed that there are 350 fewer teachers in schools this term than last term, and that there are real worries that there will be 2,300 fewer teachers in the east midlands next year? Should we not invest in education and the future rather than cutting expenditure?
    Mr. Forth: I am not surprised that parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have expressed alarm at their county council's conduct of local education matters. I should have thought that they would want to examine carefully his county's disposition of surplus school places, for example, as well as the priority that it has or has not given to education, and the extent of its non-education expenditure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is urging parents to ask their county councillors searching questions about how far the council reflects those parents' needs.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that size is not everything, and that what is done with an education budget can be just as important? Is he aware that in Japan less than 4 per cent. of public expenditure goes to education, compared with more than 5 per cent. in this country, so there is no necessary link between how much is spent on education and what is achieved with the money?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right; none of us is sizeist. The point is how effectively the money is used. There is no proven demonstrable correlation between the amount spent per pupil anywhere in the country and the educational outcomes achieved. My hon. Friend has done well to undermine and expose the glib assertion that there is necessarily a causal connection between the amount spent and educational outcomes.
    Mr. MacShane: In that case, will the Minister promise the parents of Rotherham, who have seen 104 teachers sacked because of last year's education round, that spending money on education does not matter? He would not dare to come to my constituency and tell teachers and

    137
    parents that class sizes, educational attainment and sacking teachers does not count. The only teacher whom they want sacked is the ex-teacher sitting beside him.
    Mr. Forth: I have been to many constituencies up and down the country and said exactly that to many people, and I will continue to do so whenever I have the opportunity. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
    Mr. Forth: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his colleague, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should be asking those questions of those responsible for spending the money in the area. If it has been necessary—if regrettable—to sack teachers, the hon. Gentleman's questions should be put to the local education authority that has made the decisions. The authority must be accountable to parents for the expenditure in its area.
    Mr. Dover: Is the Minister aware that the Government's announcement last year of a 1 per cent. increase in education spend was converted by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council into a reduction of 5.5 per cent? Is it not the worst-possible trouble-stirring for Labour to say to schools that there will be a further cut of 8 per cent. in 1996–97 before the Budget at the end of November and before the rate support grant settlement?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. LEAs must be accountable for their decisions in their localities. If the authorities are prepared to play politics in the classroom and to make cheap political points by sacking teachers or by misleading parents and electors, I am sure that my hon. Friend and all my colleagues will continue to expose such practices.

    Educational Attainment
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of educational attainment on levels of pay received later in life. [36000]
    Mr. Forth: High levels of educational achievement are vital to promote economic growth and personal development. The evidence is that earnings are higher for the better qualified both on qualification and throughout life.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that most of those who get the chance of going to university, and therefore have the chance to earn more in later life, will pay back for their education by higher taxation? Will the Government therefore scrap the discredited and despised student loans?
    Mr. Forth: I am delighted that someone has emerged from the undergrowth on the Opposition Benches to make a plea for higher taxation. If there were more honesty from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, we would get further in the political debate. The student loans scheme is working extraordinarily well. It has been well taken up and has been welcomed by students, more and more of whom are entering and leaving higher education every year.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not the case that students currently going into higher education—the ratio is one in
    138
    three today, compared with one in eight under Labour—are benefiting from the education funds that have been recycled through the repayment of the grants of the generation who went before? Are not those very students, who under Labour would not have entered higher education, now benefiting?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. The evidence shows that a large number of young people are now enjoying the benefits of higher education, while many more are enjoying excellent education post-16 in our further education colleges and sixth forms. Even more young people are taking part in modern apprenticeships and the many other training and educational opportunities that the Government are giving them. We will take no lectures from Opposition Members on the quality and breadth of what is being provided to young people and to those in learning throughout their lives in our various institutions of learning.
    Ms Short: Does the Minister appreciate that the Government's policy of encouraging low pay in Britain is leading to a growth in the number of jobs requiring few skills or educational qualifications? Does he agree that Britain is worryingly backward when compared with our competitor countries in the skills level of the work force and in the percentage of young people in higher education? Is not the Government's policy of encouraging low pay and low skills blighting the life opportunities of British workers and damaging the economic position and the future of the British economy?
    Mr. Forth: I recognise nothing in what the hon. Lady has said. We do not support the Opposition's policy of no pay. The figures prove that countries which have a statutory minimum wage—particularly some of our partners on the European mainland—have much higher overall unemployment, and unemployment of young people in particular, than this country. The lesson is quite clear; if one imposes a minimum pay rate on the labour market, a lot of people will be thrown out of work and will end up with no pay, not low pay.

    Training
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next plans to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss training. [36001]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met John Monks on 30 August, and I will be meeting him on 8 November 1995.
    Mr. Rooney: Is the Minister aware that today one in five vacancies cannot be filled because of skills shortages? Will he therefore accept the advice of both the Confederation of British Industry and the Engineering Employers Federation that the voluntary levy system has failed and that he needs to get together with all partners in industry to improve training levels?
    Mr. Paice: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his ideas from. Both the CBI and the engineering employers are whole-heartedly against the reintroduction of a levy. Only the Labour party persists in believing that it knows better than business how to invest in training. The voluntary approach that the Government have

    139
    followed has delivered greater volumes of expenditure on training, much better focused training and a much better qualified work force than there ever was under the previous Government.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36019]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Coombs: Even in the light of the recent record fall in reported crime, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great welcome that there will be throughout the country for the additional 5,000 police officers approved last week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of what the Lord Chief Justice might say, long prison sentences which become short as a result of automatic remission undermine people's sense of justice and do not act as a sufficient deterrent to the criminal?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's strategy to fight crime. The threat of a long prison sentence deters criminals from committing crime. That is not just my view and that of the Home Secretary. That is the view of the police as well. I welcome the fall in crime over the past two and a half years, but we wish to see it fall a good deal further. That is what lay behind our announcements last week.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister will know that the Home Secretary has denied any involvement in the operational matters of the Prison Service, including the Parkhurst breakout. Can he therefore confirm the following facts: that, so far from this being true, the Home Secretary personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended immediately; that when Mr. Lewis objected as it was an operational matter, the Home Secretary threatened to instruct him to do it; that when Mr. Lewis further objected, the Home Secretary told the operational director of the Prison Service by fax that he would announce it in the House of Commons that day and duly did announce it in his statement to the House? Is that true or is it false?
    The Prime Minister: The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for the actions of the Home Office and for the actions of the governor. He appointed Mr. Lewis to run the Prison Service. The criticisms over the past few days by the Learmont report have been directed at the director of prisons and not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I believe that the Home Secretary has acted entirely properly throughout this affair.
    Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the Prime Minister has not answered the factual question. The Home Secretary is sitting a couple of places along. The Prime Minister can ask him whether it is true now. I put certain specific facts
    140
    in relation to the pressure on Mr. Lewis in respect of the removal of the governor of Parkhurst. Are those facts true or are they false?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt that whatever action my right hon. and learned Friend took was entirely proper and within his remit as Home Secretary answerable to this House.
    Mr. Blair: If the facts are true, it was not within his remit as it was an operational matter. That is precisely the issue. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Mr. Lewis has also said this morning that the Home Secretary personally interfered in prison visits, in searches and in disciplinary awards and that there has been greater political interference than at any point in time in the service history? Is it not the case that we do not have a Government governing the country? We have a group of Ministers who will play games with these issues, who take credit when things are going right and refuse to take credit when things are going wrong. That is not a responsible Government for Britain.
    The Prime Minister: We noticed the careful lead-up to the pre-prepared soundbite, as we do each Tuesday and Thursday. My right hon. and learned Friend discharges properly his responsibilities to this House and this country. Were he not to do so, the Leader of the Opposition would say, "Why does the Home Secretary not take an interest in matters that are relevant to the good conduct of the prison service?" But he is not responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. He is responsible to this House and answerable to this House, and he must take actions in the interests of the Prison Service. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend has done, and he has my full support in having done it.
    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the proposal that British Telecom should be able to wire up schools to the super-highway in return for carrying television signals? Is he aware that that would run contrary to the well-settled framework for those matters, and would be to the considerable advantage of British Telecom and the considerable disadvantage of the cable companies which have invested a great deal in the procedure so far?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I am aware of that. Many schools are already being cabled up for precisely those advantages. If the Opposition, who occasionally like to claim credit for the information super-highway, were to examine what was happening—if they took their heads out of the sand and put them in the holes in the road—they would see that it was already being built.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36020]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Campbell: Which has done more damage to the Government: the irresponsibility of the Defence Secretary last week or the Home Secretary's unwillingness to accept responsibility this week?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was expressing the fears of many people, not

    141
    just in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe, about the more ambitious federalist plans for the future of the European Union. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that his party's policy is that the British armed forces should be commanded by qualified majority vote elsewhere, let him say so.
    Mr. Dunn: Conservatives welcome the decision to expand the assisted places scheme. Will my right hon. Friend compare our policies of maximising parental choice with those of the Opposition, which would destroy the city technology colleges, grammar schools, the assisted places scheme and grant-maintained schools in the interests of equality, justice and social engineering?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We seek excellence in education and choice for all parents in the interests of their children. I very much regret that the Opposition—except perhaps the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—oppose the assisted places scheme.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36021]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister share the fear that has been expressed that the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office later this afternoon will lead to commercial motives overriding the public interest in making official information more freely available to the general public, as it is in other countries? Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is clearly in a privatised HMSO's interest to resist free electronic access to Government publications protected by Government copyright? How does that square with the Government's commitment to a freedom of information policy and to extending the information technology revolution to the rest of the country?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is answering a question later on this afternoon. I do not wish comment in detail on the substance of his question but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the needs of Parliament and other customers are satisfied for openness, for improved access to information technology, for value for money, for flexibility and for security of supply. The record of privatisation over recent years is that it has improved, not damaged, service.
    Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend will have heard this morning of another terrorist bombing in Paris. Will he use this opportunity today to reaffirm his Government's policy on border controls and to make sure that they are never loosened so that terrorists may not get easy access to this country?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm the Government's policy on border controls. We need those border controls. We intend to keep them, and they are not negotiable.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36022]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michael: Can we now hear it straight from the Prime Minister: just how bad do things have to get at the Home Office to require a ministerial resignation?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Learmont report, and after he has done so he will be better informed and he will know that the criticisms were directed not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary but at the Prison Service. My right hon. and learned Friend acted properly in those circumstances.
    Mr. Marlow: Given that a report has been issued today by the Labour party—the blueprint for the dismemberment of the United Kingdom—could my right hon. Friend tell the House how it could be possible if there were a Parliament in Scotland, that a party with a majority in the United Kingdom but not in the majority in England could govern England?
    The Prime Minister: I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the document that has been published today but I am certainly aware that one was scheduled to be published today and I am aware of the policies of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party on the subject of devolution in Scotland. There is no doubt whatsoever that those policies, if carried out as at present intended, would have a very damaging effect on the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Although the leader of the Labour party shouts something at me across the Dispatch Box, it was he who referred to the tartan tax—an extra £6 a week, which he seems to think is an accountancy detail.
    Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36023]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Quin: Given the widespread public concern expressed over the summer, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity, particularly before the Commonwealth conference next month, of condemning the French nuclear tests in the south Pacific?
    The Prime Minister: No, I will not.
    Mr. Michael Brown: The Prime Minister spoke with the Home Secretary last week in the Winter Gardens at Blackpool where the subject of closed circuit televisions to deal with law and order was raised. Is he aware that in Cleethorpes we have a Winter Gardens, but we do not yet have closed circuit television. The Minister of State was unable to accede to my request earlier this year. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and the people of Cleethorpes that this time round Cleethorpes will be considered for closed circuit television in the high street and on the sea front where we have a problem with the youths and yobs who cause such distress to our retired people in Cleethorpes?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be provision for a further 10,000 such closed circuit television cameras over the next three years and I

    143
    have no doubt, as we consider where those should be, that my hon. Friend may from time to time mention the particular concerns of Cleethorpes.
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36024]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that there have been angry reactions throughout the country to reports that overseas aid is to be cut by 12 per cent. over two years? Does he not care that such cuts would have a catastrophic effect on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world? Is he aware that 79 per cent. of the British people find such cuts repugnant when they will be used for tax cuts in the run-up to the general election?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, at something more than £2.2 billion, we have the fifth largest overseas aid programme in the world. It is not only one of the largest aid programmes in the world but, as the hon. Lady herself has acknowledged in the past, one of the
    144
    best. I assure the hon. Lady that, after my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget, we shall continue to have a highly effective aid programme.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concept of fundholding is right at the core of the success of our reforms in the health service? Has he noticed that doctors who are fundholders have, in the past two days, roundly attacked Labour's proposals for the sham that they are and have said that they will destroy the very success that we have created? Will my right hon. Friend now take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to fundholding status and to point out the disastrous concept of Labour policy?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The report by the GPs sets out what we have said consistently about fundholding—that our reforms are benefiting patients and delivering to them the service that they deserve. If the Labour party seriously intended to turn the clock back and to abolish fundholding, it would create chaos and confusion, and would damage the service for patients. The fact of the matter is that Labour is more concerned about political gestures than about care for the patient, and that has always been the case.

Rural White Paper
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I am pleased to present to the House today the Government's White Paper "Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside". This has been produced jointly by my own Department and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but with the close co-operation and participation of all Government Departments and countryside agencies. Scotland and Wales will produce their own papers.
When we started on this venture, we undertook to consider together the economic, social and environmental aspects of country life, building on the principles set out in the sustainable development strategy. This was an ambitious task, but the goal of sustainable development requires that we look at such subjects in the round. This White Paper does just that.
The White Paper sets out the role of Government alongside that of the many others who share influence over the future of rural life. It strikes a proper balance between the many competing pressures on our rural life and landscape. It embodies our determination not to allow the countryside to be turned into a museum piece. It sets out how the countryside can continue its economic success and remain a living, working place. It marks a new phase in environmental protection. It shows our determination to protect and enhance the countryside for its own sake. It emphasises the diversity within our rural areas, and demonstrates our commitment to real subsidiarity.
Sustainable development is about the right way in which to achieve economic development, not about stopping it. All our aspirations for rural areas depend on a secure and diverse economic base. The Government's root economic policies—more competition, less regulation and sensible planning—have brought huge benefits to the rural economy, as elsewhere. Rural enterprise is flourishing. The rate of growth of small business has far exceeded the national average. Unemployment is lower. New jobs are rapidly replacing the old, as advances in communications and in transport transform our notion of what is remote.
However, success must not lead to complacency. We need further diversification, and we need to see the benefits of this reach to all parts of the countryside—as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will no doubt know from his rural experience.
The White Paper therefore contains a number of measures to strengthen the competitiveness of rural businesses and to promote economic diversification in ways which respect the environment. Perhaps most notably, we shall revise planning policy guidance note 7—the main rural planning guidance note—to encourage greater re-use of rural buildings for business rather than residential purposes; we shall consult on the introduction of a new rural business use class within the planning system, in order further to encourage appropriate rural enterprise; and we will continue our drive against unnecessary regulation and over-zealous enforcement of those regulations which are necessary.
146
At the same time, we should defend the green belt, restrain out-of-town shopping developments and, by the regeneration of our inner cities, ensure that as much new building as possible takes place in our towns.
We shall also continue to safeguard a viable and competitive agriculture. Although no longer the predominant rural employer, farming remains a dynamic and essential industry. It supports a range of ancillary supply industries and provides raw materials for food processing. Agriculture remains the most important influence on the appearance of most of our countryside. Its continued viability will remain crucial for the achievement of many conservation objectives.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear the Government's view that producers and consumers alike would benefit from further, fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy in the direction of freer markets. The White Paper reaffirms that belief, and with it the Government's commitment to ensure that care for the environment is central to the future development of the CAP.
The White Paper also places great emphasis on diversity. Conservative Members will welcome the fact that we set out to respect and enhance that diversity, not to stamp upon it. Rural England is not one homogeneous entity, but a glorious mixture. A wide range of local circumstances create a wide range of local needs. These needs are best known, and therefore best dealt with, by the people most directly concerned.
Accordingly, the Government propose to test new ways of increasing local influence over local issues and enhancing the role of parish councils, particularly in crime prevention, community transport and the management of local footpaths.
The White Paper contains a number of additional measures and commitments to help meet the need for high-quality rural services, and to improve their accessibility to those who most need them. Quality and accessibility do not always rest easily together, yet the Government are determined to improve both. To this end, we shall launch a rural charter initiative to help ensure that service providers meet the needs of their rural as well as their urban customers.
Without doubt, there is great potential in the application of information technology. This has implications right across the board—for education, for medicine, for the viability of local post offices, for work patterns and for transport needs. Use of such technology is already spreading fast, a process which has been greatly assisted by our resolute determination to introduce greater competition into the communication markets.
I should like to comment particularly on two crucial aspects of community life—the village store and local housing. There is no true substitute for local shops, which so often form the hub of a small community. While ultimately it is only customers who can guarantee their future, the general store and post office do have a particular importance in village life, and I am sure that the House will agree that it is right both to recognise that status and to seek to bolster it wherever practicable.
I am therefore announcing today that we intend further to safeguard the position of the traditional village store, and that we shall shortly consult on a new business rate relief scheme specifically targeted to benefit these stores. This last measure may require legislation, but in the

147
meantime we shall encourage local authorities to use the discretion they already have in the area to help the retention of village stores.
Similarly, the need for affordable housing is particularly keenly felt in rural areas, and we therefore wish to see more land brought forward for rented housing for local people. Our consultations identified four main constraints on this, and the White Paper addresses every one of these constraints.
First, the Government will reinforce their exceptions policy, so that affordable housing can be built outside the normal village envelope. Secondly, the Rural Development Commission will extend its support for so-called rural housing enablers, helping to guide interested landowners through the necessary agreements with housing associations and others.
Thirdly, we shall give the Housing Corporation greater flexibility to enhance its grant rates where that is necessary for rural schemes. I can give an assurance today that, in rural areas, developments built for local low-cost rented accommodation now will remain available for local low-cost rented accommodation in the future.
The White Paper emphasises the inter-relationship between economic development and environmental protection. It has much to say about safeguarding the countryside's natural resources—its water, its soil, its minerals, its habitats and wildlife, its woodland. In the case of forestry, it sets out a new target for doubling woodland cover over the next half century.
The White Paper marks a transition between two great phases of conservation policy making. The Government intend in future to complement the present system of area designations with new ways of enriching the quality of the wider countryside. We are not content merely to protect the wildlife that we already have; we aim to reverse that decline through the biodiversity action plan that is being advanced in parallel with this rural White Paper.
We shall give high priority to providing extra funding for the countryside stewardship scheme. Countryside stewardship will become the main axis of our practical conservation policy, and will be expanded to target new habitats and landscape features.
It is not for us to impose a national blueprint upon rural life, or to attempt a proliferation of local blueprints. Rather, it is our task to set a broad policy framework that maximises the opportunity for local initiative and responsibility, while ensuring that legitimate national objectives can be met and that the genuine public interest is properly protected.
In addition, the Government take seriously the task of ensuring that the rural voice is not drowned out by the metropolitan megaphone, and that rural tradition and local opinion are not stifled by sophisticated national pressure groups. To that end, we shall expand the remit of the Cabinet Committee on the Environment so that its task will he continually to consider the rural dimension of policy-making right across Whitehall. We intend to follow up the White Paper's proposals swiftly, and will report on progress next year.
The rural White Paper is a landmark statement on rural policy. I commend it to the House.
Dr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State remember telling his party conference
148
last week that this rural White Paper would start with humility? So it should, for the Government have failed our rural communities.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the Conservatives, unemployment and crime have increased faster in our rural areas than elsewhere? Rural homelessness has more than doubled, and low pay is more prevalent than in our towns. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that village schools have closed, and that other essential local services have been lost—that our market towns and local shops have borne the brunt of the Government's past planning mistakes over out-of-town shopping centres?
As for the White Paper itself, let me deal first with housing. I welcome the Secretary of State's concession on exemptions to the right to buy for housing associations, and note what he just said about Housing Corporation grants; but how does he hope to ensure the building of an adequate number of much-needed homes for rent—particularly if he still refuses to allow local authorities to spend the millions of pounds raised from council house sales?
Then there is agriculture. I welcome the restatement of the plan to expand the countryside stewardship scheme; but only this year the Government scrapped the farm conservation grant schemes that helped farmers to combat pollution and to implement environmental improvement plans. How, then, can the Secretary of State assure us that today's recycled announcement is not just another thin coat of green paint that will be quickly scratched off in the spending round?
It was only two and a half years ago that the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Agriculture, was telling us that the reformed common agricultural policy was all his own work. Can he confirm that today's remarks on the CAP mean that the Government are now moving towards the policy that the Labour party has been advocating for some years—that price support payments should go, and that fair support for agriculture should be placed alongside new investment in the rural economy and environment?
Is the Secretary of State seriously seeking to encourage the selling off of more county council smallholdings? Is he not aware that the policy of both the agricultural workers union and the National Farmers Union is that those smallholdings should be retained?
Finally, on transport, is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a disastrous collapse in bus services in many rural areas? Local bus passenger journeys outside London have declined by more than a quarter since deregulation. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make a significant impact on the desperate shortage of transport services in rural areas if he continues to back deregulation? Will he also accept that the Government's deeply unpopular rail privatisation plans would pose a threat to rural stations and rural services in particular?
Has not the Government's recent agenda shown just how out of touch they have become with rural communities, as witness their proposals to privatise the Post Office and the Forestry Commission. and to abolish the agricultural wages boards? Labour fought successfully with rural communities against all those proposals. Does the Secretary of State accept that, while the Government have failed our rural communities, it is the Labour party that is addressing the real needs of people in the

149
countryside? That is why so many Conservative MEPs and councillors have lost their seats to Labour in the past 18 months.
Of course we shall consider this White Paper carefully and with interest. Above all, however, is it not a recognition of 16 years of Government failure?
Mr. Gummer: I shall resist the temptation to indulge in party politicking, although it seems a bit thick for the Labour party to say that it is a rural party when it cannot even allow its shadow Environment Secretary to reply to a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman knows so little about rural life that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has to answer instead. I am surprised that he knows so little about England that he does not even realise that village schools in Warwickshire, and in Stratford-on-Avon in particular, are being closed at the instigation of Labour-controlled Warwickshire county council.
I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman should dare to talk about agriculture as he does. I note that he has to fill in for the entire Labour agriculture Front-Bench group-but, as they represent Deptford, Camden and agricultural Greenwich, one can understand why that is necessary.
When talking about agriculture, the subject that he is supposed to know about, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East seems to have missed the fact that the reform of the CAP put support for environmentally friendly farming at its centre, whereas it had been a peripheral, add-on extra. That is the reform that we carried through, with precious little support from the Labour party, whose members, in so far as they were able to understand the rural dimension, did nothing to support rural people, farmers and farm workers.
As for county council smallholdings, the hon. Gentleman should have checked the facts. The number of county council smallholdings which act as a ladder into agriculture, as they were intended to do, is infinitesimal, which is why we believe that using the resources for other rural purposes is a higher priority for improving the rural economy. That comes from a party that knows about rural areas, not a party that merely visits them occasionally at weekends.
The one thing that will give us the rail services we need in rural areas, as in the East Suffolk line in my constituency, is the privatisation of rail services, which will enable us to direct the subsidy for the very services we want, rather than the subsidy being lost in the general cost of what was British Rail, when one could not see where that money was used, and certainly did not find it used in rural areas.
What an amazing statement about the privatisation of the Post Office. Most, if not all, rural post offices are privatised. The hon. Gentleman has never been in a rural post office if he thinks that they are nationalised. Rural post offices are run by rural postmasters and postmistresses. They were overwhelmingly in favour of Post Office privatisation because it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid they were. Opposition Members do not listen to rural people, so they do not know. Greenwich appears to be so far from the country that they have not even heard what rural postmasters and postmistresses
150
have said. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East knows nothing about rural areas, cares less about them and should not have replied to the statement.
Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend will know that there has been much concern in rural areas about the prospect of the sale of council houses to their tenants on land that has been given to the village at less than the market price. May I take it from my right hon. Friend's statement that that position is now safeguarded, and that it will be possible for gifts of land or sales of land at less than the market price to be made to the local community in which council house tenants may be kept with no right to buy?
Mr. Gummer: That is true, and the effect of the exceptions policy, which allows land to come forward which would not otherwise be allowed for development, will, of course, be the interreaction with that, making the situation in settlements of less than 3,000 people unique. It is not something that happens elsewhere, but it does happen there and we want to safeguard it.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State will note that, although there are many warm words in the White Paper, the real test will be in the Budget which is yet to come. For example, will there be money to restore the cuts in rural housing association funding for new build in relation to the homes that he talked about in rural communities?
Will the current review of sparsity factors which the Department is undertaking lead to big cuts in rural council funding, as those councils expect? Will there be funding to councils to give rate relief to local post offices and to small businesses in village centres that he talks about, and will he respond to the call by his own Conservative party activists at his conference, who do know rural areas and who asked for the cap to be lifted on local rural councils?
Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Gentleman should know that the review of the sparsity factor was asked for by Labour councils in association with Liberal councils—in most counties, the difference is difficult to see. They are working closely hand in hand in ruining our rural areas and supporting urban areas instead.
That is what is happening in my county, where Ipswich is the only part that counts and rural areas have been betrayed by Labour and Liberal councillors together. I find it difficult to take the hon. Member's views on rural areas seriously when we note what is actually happening in rural county councils controlled by his party alone or in coalition with the Labour party, where they have given way to the megaphone of the towns instead of supporting the needs of the countryside. He will find out what is in the Budget when the Budget comes.
Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): I warmly welcome the White Paper. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a profitable agriculture is a prerequisite of enhancing and beautifying the countryside and looking after the habitat? With my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he do all he can to achieve just that within the CAP?
Mr. Gummer: Of course. The battle to ensure that we did not have the MacSharry plan, which would have made our agriculture unprofitable and which in many regions was supported by Opposition parties, involved an

151
important change of attitude, but we still have not moved far enough into a situation in which farmers are supported for looking after the land in an environmentally friendly way. We still have too much weight on production support; I look forward to a CAP that moves closer to selling goods at a proper price level and to providing help for farmers to farm in a way that enhances the countryside.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Will the Secretary of State tell us how much it will cost, where the money will come from and who will pay?
Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read every word of the White Paper, where he will see very clearly that, instead of the usual Labour party view that one can solve all problems by throwing money at them, we have shown that, by changing the nature of the way in which we look at the countryside, and by building on what we are already spending and what we have already done, we can make a huge difference to the countryside. The hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to read what is a long, complicated and extremely interesting report. I hope that he will do so, and that when he does he will not make such off-the-cuff remarks.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his support and encouragement of village stores and his resistance to what I call supermarket mania will be widely welcomed in Cambridgeshire? Will my right hon. Friend address an entirely different matter which is of great concern in what is the fastest growing county in the country and the one with the worst road accident record? Will my right hon. Friend look at the problem of development where, in the case of the crazy proposals in the so-called Cambourn development, thousands more vehicles will be thrown on to a road that is already extremely dangerous? Will my right hon. Friend please discuss that serious problem with those in the Department of Transport?
Mr. Gummer: We will have to see some development in the countryside. I hope that we can change the social conditions whereby, because of the break-up of marriages, more and more units of accommodation are demanded for the same population. That is one of the serious matters that must concern us. We are talking about perhaps a further 2 million homes. I want to see the majority of those—as many as possible—in the centres of our cities. I want to see the re-use of brown land where there is the necessary infrastructure.
I must tell my hon. Friend that there is to be consultation about how we will meet those requirements. One of the issues that will be raised is that of new settlements and the roads that service them. I hope that my hon. Friend will play a part in that consultation.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State is always pressing the Labour party on how much our programmes will cost. Can we have a clear answer to a simple question? How much will it cost to meet all those promises made to the British people? How much taxpayers' money will be spent in supporting this statement? Let us have a clear answer to the question.
Mr. Gummer: A clear answer to the question is that a large amount of that money is already being spent.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?
Mr. Gummer: There will be more money spent in these areas, but most of what is in the White Paper, as the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads it, is about an entire change in the way in which we look at our rural areas and making sure that the attitudes of rural people are reflected in Government policy, so that money which in the past has not come to rural areas will come to them, and so that the services of service providers, not necessarily the Government, are offered in rural areas as well as urban areas.
The White Paper has a wider range of proposals, not just for Government and local government, but for institutions outside, than any comparable White Paper. The fact that the hon. Gentleman made that comment shows that he has not yet had a chance to read the report. I hope that, when he has, he will not bother to ask that question.
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his White Paper, and warmly welcome many of its provisions. I particularly welcome the business rate relief scheme announced today for rural post offices and general stores, which will be very welcome in the rural areas of my constituency. In addition, I welcome the fact that affordable housing in villages will remain in the rented sector. However, like the issues that arise in smallholding, how will my right hon. Friend address the fact that, sadly, it may mean that housing is allocated once and once only? Will there be some sort of mechanism to ensure that those who become more prosperous use such housing as a first step rather than as an end-of-the-road home, if I may put it that way?
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to that, and it is why we have a series of policies which enable those who wish to buy their own home to do so on the open market with some help, in place of what would otherwise be a discount on the house on which they have paid rent over the years. As I have already announced, those schemes will be expanded and they will be available to many of those about whom we have been talking. We want those who live and who are brought up in the countryside to be able to continue to live there. The problem in many small villages is that there is no alternative space because of the strict planning provisions. Therefore, it is better to make provision for people to buy on the open market in those circumstances.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Many of the proposals in the White Paper should be welcomed by the House. On the question of restraining out-of-town shopping developments, does the Secretary of State accept that one of the problems for retail developers is the difficulty in acquiring central sites in our towns and cities that require regeneration? Has he any further proposals to facilitate and ease the acquisition of such sites in the inner parts of our towns and cities?
The business rate relief for village stores is very welcome indeed, and I hope that it will be pursued. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland to ensure that village stores throughout the whole of the United Kingdom can benefit from that measure?
Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly do the latter, if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to do so. On his comment

153
about the provision of central sites, we hope to persuade local authorities to take a much more active part in that, not only in helping with the assembly of land, but in being much more sensible about the provision of car parking. I am afraid that some local authorities have sought to second-guess those who wish to develop in the centre of towns by saying how much car parking they, the local authorities, think is suitable—when, after all, often the developer has built many large supermarkets throughout the country, and knows perfectly well how many car parking places are necessary.
I also hope that local authorities will recognise that the provision of car parking is much better done by those who have an interest in it, such as the retailing sector, than by the local authority, where money for the car park is often spread over many years, refurbishment does not take place and, consequently, the car parking is not acceptable, and people go to out-of-town stores instead.
Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to protect the green belt, to discourage the development of out-of-town shopping centres, and to encourage the development of brown land in our towns and cities. While most people would warmly welcome measures that develop business in rural areas, will he ensure that any relaxation of planning restrictions in countryside areas outside the green belt does not assist the sort of massive over-development of the countryside that is currently being planned by local authorities such as Lancashire county council in its draft structure plan, which will eat up 6,000 acres of Lancashire countryside?
Mr. Gummer: Some of what I have seen of Lancashire county council belies the Labour party's comments about concern for the countryside. Lancashire county council has not shown any such concern under its current Labour control.
I am not suggesting any relaxation of planning arrangements, except in the following senses. First, when a local authority refuses planning permission for the re-use of an existing building, it should say what it believes the building could be used for. It cannot simply take a negative attitude; there must be a positive attempt to find a proper use for the building. Secondly, I believe that, in every case possible, such a building is better used for the provision of jobs than turned into another rural home. That was its original use in most cases, and it is one of the ways by which we can bring greater work into the countryside.
I hope that a more sensible attitude will be taken towards allowing people to begin businesses, whether in back kitchens, outhouses or the like. Often, some over-zealous local authorities prevent that, and demand that people should go to the local industrial estate—
Mr. Terry Davis: Come on.
Mr. Gummer: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but many of us who know about rural areas have had that sort of experience. I have no intention of permitting a general relaxation of planning arrangements.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. If I am to call all hon. Members who are interested in the statement, questions
154
must be brisker and answers must be equally brisk; otherwise, many hon. Members will be disappointed today.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Minister was speaking about buildings. I would like to ask him about police stations. Across a whole swathe of rural Lancashire, in towns such as Barnoldswick and Clitheroe which serve the rural areas, police stations are being closed. The police are telling the public that they have to choose between having a police station closed or having policemen or women on the beat.
Is it the case, and is the Minister advising, that police stations should double up with fire stations, parish councils, Co-ops and perhaps post offices, to ensure that the police station is a presence in the countryside?
Mr. Gummer: I do not think that I suggested any of those possibilities. It seems that the promise of 5,000 further policemen and the fact that we are suggesting in the rural White Paper a considerable increase in the number of special constables in rural areas, especially those who have a connection with a particular village, shows that we put the emphasis where it ought to be: bobbies on the beat, bobbies in the village, and a feeling that there is someone there doing the job, which is what most rural people want.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to the countryside is the tremendous outspill from the big cities? The building of at least 10,000 new houses in Maidstone over the next 20 years is threatened. Does he agree that we should look at the possibility of creating new whole villages rather than simply chicken-pox development around the local area?
Mr. Gummer: In the consultation paper with which we will be proceeding early in the new year, that is obviously one of the issues that we will have to discuss. I happen to think that we also have to deal with the root cause: we need more and more units of accommodation for every thousand of the population, not only because people live longer or go away from home earlier, but simply because marriages break up so much more often. We must consider that issue in a serious way as a nation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): May I ask, as one who represents a constituency of more than 500 square miles, whether the Minister is aware that most people in those villages and small towns would take the view that he could hardly wipe away in a single statement one afternoon 16 years of unregulated market forces, which have caused damage and blight in many of those villages? I refer in particular, but not only in that respect, to those massive supermarket and hypermarket developments.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, for most people in about 100 constituencies in Britain where rural life is important, he ought to put a stop to all those new green field opencast applications. I do not suppose for a minute that there is anything in the White Paper to put a stop to that.
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want me to join him in saying that I am entirely supportive of the 16 years, which saw the major changes in our rural society brought about by the environmentally sensitive areas—a system copied throughout Europe and

155
the world. It has meant that large sums of money have gone into the rural environment, and that the Environment Agency has been set up after the very successful setting up of the National Rivers Authority.
In the past 16 years, more attention has been given to our rural areas than perhaps in any time since the war. So I have nothing to be ashamed of from the past, but I want to do better in the future and to build on the excellence of the past. We are recognised throughout Europe for the excellence of our rural policy, and we wish to continue that. We do not have desertification in our rural areas: we have people moving in, so good is the policy.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State's emphasis on local decision taking, and his wish to see the countryside protected. Does he agree that he should look again at the way in which the five-year supply of land is calculated, and base it more on market experience—the number of houses people want to build and can sell—and rather less on the apocalyptic dreams of his officials about the likely collapse of the family? Surely, as members of the party of the family, we should support the family, not forecast its demise.
Mr. Gummer: I have scaled down as far as is humanly possible the concerns of a county such as Berkshire, for example. But the figure which Berkshire has agreed to accept of 40,000 homes is significantly less than the number which has been proposed by most of the authorities in the areas concerned, based upon the most, if I may say so, conservative figuring. We have to consider such matters seriously. My right hon. Friend's own record shows that he at least thinks that concern for the family is a matter for all of us.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about opencast mining? Does he accept that opencast developments provide very few jobs and seriously disrupt the landscape and rural communities of the areas involved? He must surely accept that the time has come to review the planning regulations and planning assumptions about opencast developments by the private sector.
Mr. Gummer: I have already done that; it was one of the first things I did. I reviewed the planning arrangements for opencast developments, and transformed the nature of the proof required. The proof is now very much more difficult to get, and it is also more difficult to get opencast mining permission. We made that change not because of the Labour party but because our party is concerned about our rural areas. The effect has been dramatic; the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is just wrong.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is it not the case that the White Paper was produced after the most extensive consultation ever undertaken the length and breadth of England, during which the Government listened above all to those who live and work in rural areas? Is it not right that this White Paper should be produced by the real party of the countryside, in contrast to what was produced on the back of an envelope by the townies opposite who represent seats in Camden and Edinburgh? Will not the White Paper create the right tone for the important debate that must follow on the future of our rural areas?
Mr. Gummer: There was more consultation on this White Paper than on almost anything that I can remember in government. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that practically nothing in the consultation stemmed from any suggestions made by the Opposition. The Labour party is unable to offer anything to country people, for it is an urban party, with no interest in the countryside except when votes are at stake.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the deep concern felt by the farming population about the failure of young people to enter agriculture, and the consequent continuing increase in the average age of farmers. Does he recognise that it is important to have a sufficient number of people working in agriculture, not only to guarantee food production in the future but to ensure environmental protection?
Furthermore, the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Union that has no package of support to enable young people to enter the industry. Will he undertake to press the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and is there something about it in the White Paper?
Mr. Gummer: I have several times—as Minister of Agriculture, and since—considered whether such a package would be effective, and I must say that I do not think it would. Much more effective has been the reform of agricultural land tenure, which means that many more farms will be available for letting than would otherwise have been the case—clearly, what the Government and the Country Landowners Association suggested turns out to be true. One sadness is that that legislation was opposed by the Opposition, who do not understand rural life, and prove as much whenever there is the possibility of a vote.
Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that many people, in my constituency and in the country as a whole, will warmly welcome the White Paper, especially its emphasis on parish councils and the new opportunities that are to be given to them to play a more active part in the daily life of their communities, and its emphasis on a sensible examination of the common agricultural policy and its impact on, for example, forestry?
Should not everyone who has a real interest in the rural community read the White Paper and take an active part in the further consultation process, so that we can build on the White Paper and expose members of the Labour party as the urban townies they are, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)?
Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I believe that, within the European Union, we can develop a common agricultural policy that is more effective in supporting the environment. We need to work with our partners because alone we would find ourselves in a conflict of subsidy. I believe that my hon. Friend will find some of our suggestions in the White Paper extremely supportive.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister agree that most farmers in difficult hill country are living on a knife edge, and want the Government to show that they are committed to helping hill farmers remain in production? Will he say that he recognises the concerns

157
of farmers who are unable to maintain drystone walls, and that Government policy is in fact making that more difficult for them?
Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have done a great deal to help farmers maintain such traditional elements, and that, in the Environment Act 1995, we took particular care to further that end. We have a long record of support for hill farmers, because there is no doubt that the countryside in the hills will remain as it is only if it is properly farmed, and animals and human beings can continue to live there. The hon. Gentleman speaks for us all when he says that hill farmers deserve the support that we give them.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the urban townies on the Conservative side welcome his statement, especially the flexibility being introduced concerning the reuse of rural buildings, and the much-needed economic health that that will bring to the countryside? Does he accept that we are also watching with interest the progress of rate relief for rural shops? Many shops in our high streets suffer equally, and rate relief for them would be extremely popular.
Mr. Gummer: I am aware that many hon. Members—they are not confined to the Government side of the House—will find an excuse to raise a favourite topic even in unfavourable circumstances; but, I must tell my hon. Friend that, in a small remote village with one shop, the closure of that shop would make a huge difference that would not be paralleled in the cities.
Mr. Terry Lewis: How does the right hon. Gentleman square his new-found opposition to out-of-city shopping with the efforts that he has made to ensure that the Dumplington scheme in Greater Manchester has gone ahead?
Mr. Gummer: During my time as Secretary of State, I have sometimes felt it necessary to say that a development phase comes to an end, and that is what has happened—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) may make such comments, but it is rather typical of him that he has asked a question and then does not listen to the answer.
The Dumplington scheme was decided on some time ago, the circumstances were well tested in the courts, and there was no doubt that the scheme should go ahead. I have made decisions about individual schemes throughout the country, and I have believed that some should go ahead, but many I have refused. That is what the Secretary of State for the Environment has to do to fulfil his judicial function—and the hon. Member for Worsley would do better to listen to what I am saying rather than talking to his neighbour.
Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I greatly welcome the main principle behind the White Paper—to keep the countryside as a living, working place. I also welcome the thrust to increase environmental diversity. In that connection, doubling the size of our woodland in 50 years is a colossal ambition, and it was a dynamic and brave statement to make. It will make a great difference to habitats, but how will my right hon. Friend achieve that ambitious target?
Mr. Gummer: We have a whole range of programmes, not least the community forest scheme, which I support.
158
My hon. Friend is one of the most credible environmentalists, if not the most credible, in the House, and he will agree that we must approach the matter in many different ways.
I want to encourage farmers to do more planting, and local authorities, too, to support more planting on a wider scale. I also want to see planting in many places from which it is now excluded; that is why I hope that the green roots schemes starting in London will spread elsewhere. Over the next 50 years, we shall look to a whole range of innovative ways of doubling this nation's woodland cover—in appropriate places, not in places where it would harm wildlife.
Mr. Harry Barnes: What, as distinct from mineral planning guidance notes, is there in the White Paper about opencast mining? How can I be assured that the wide area of green belts in my constituency will not become black belts, with all the inconvenience that that causes to our citizens?
Mr. Gummer: I have addressed that question in four different places, the first of which was the change in the planning guidance that has made opencast mining much more difficult. Secondly, by reducing the land banks that local authorities have to hold, I have stopped the blight over large areas that would otherwise be used for the extraction of gravel.
Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have announced the landfill tax, which will make it more economic to use second-hand aggregates, and will therefore reduce the demand for virgin aggregates. Fourthly, we will ensure that national recycling schemes will increase the amount and availability of second-hand material, and will thus reduce the need for extra mining. The rural White Paper builds on our present success, and we will continue what we are doing.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend's announcement about the business rate relief will be warmly welcomed not only by sub-post offices, but by village shops. But should not the announcement go further, as such shops need support as well as advice? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that advice will come from the Rural Development Commission and that he will encourage the RDC to give such advice?
Organisations such as VIRSA—which is based in Halstock and run by Derek Smith—have done so much to assist in the introduction of co-operatives. Will such organisations be given help to enable them to do their jobs better? Will we finally have a campaign directed at those people who live in villages to say that—despite all the support that is to be given—if they do not use their local shops, they will lose them? Are not those people the key figures in this matter?
Mr. Gummer: We hope to bring together all the people concerned with the matter, and that is one reason why I am determined that the White Paper should be read in the round. It must not become the sort of wish list that the Opposition constantly want. We are seeking to tap into the dynamism of our rural areas and use voluntary and other organisations more widely.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the phrase "use it or lose it" ought to be emblazoned upon every heart in rural areas. Too many people who live in country villages and

159
drive long distances to buy all their goods then expect the local shop to be open in the middle of a snowy winter weekend to provide them with the things that they normally buy somewhere else.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: The White Paper contains measures to improve access to the countryside. Does the Secretary of State accept that a great deal needs to be done to change the rhetoric into reality? I have in mind the White Paper commitment to allow public access to land sold off by the Forestry Commission, the need to ensure that the countryside stewardship scheme really guarantees new public access, and a recognition in the White Paper that the commitment to have the rights of way network in good order by 2000 may not be met. May I invite the Secretary of State to walk down that path with renewed vigour and enthusiasm?
Mr. Gummer: I want the 120,000 miles of footpaths to be open properly and conveniently for the public, and I would like to see more access in some areas. I would certainly like to see the introduction of many of the things to which the hon. Gentleman referred—if not all of them—but I want that to be done in a way that will enhance opportunities for walkers while being balanced with other countryside matters.
I am not a believer in the right to roam, because I think that it gives rights without obligations. It gives walkers the right to roam in other areas, including wild conservation areas which must be protected to allow the next generation of birds and butterflies to be produced. We must keep a balance, but I agree that access is a most important aspect.
Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome the White Paper as a whole, but I wish particularly to emphasise my welcome to its emphasis on affordable housing. That is very important in areas such as mine, where we support a green belt which needs some exceptions. When my right hon. Friend is developing his policy in that area, will he pay attention to a matter of particular concern to me? The effect of pushing rents up to a market level has been that many people living in some form of public housing are on benefit of one kind or another. That is not very healthy from the point of view of families, and I would be interested in my right hon. Friend's views.
Mr. Gummer: Obviously, we must reach a balance. If rents are at a particular level, we can bring more money into the provision of supported housing. My hon. Friend is probably right to say that rents are at an appropriate level, and I have made some announcements in the past about the terms in which we will look at rents in the future. I do not think that my hon. Friend's opinions and mine will be very far apart when we get to that point.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that, although there are important social and human considerations to be borne in mind, from a landscape point of view it is pretty immaterial whether or not a house in the countryside is affordable. While I welcome the White Paper and look forward to reading it, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what it does further to protect the green belt, and particularly sites of special scientific interest?
Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear that I intend to continue the tough policy on the green belt, which I increased in toughness in my announcement on the green
160
belt. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. One of the reasons why I intend to treat village housing differently from other housing is that, very often, it needs to be rather more expensive in its building in order to fit in with the character of the village.
We do not want the same house type built in one village in the south of England as is built in a northern village or an eastern village. There is a great deal of difference. For example, the desire to build social housing as infilling in Suffolk villages when those villages never were infilled—they always had little gaps—is a sad result of the fact that many planners are urban people who come in from outside. I hope that we will be able to meet my hon. Friend's worries.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I welcome the broad thrust of my right hon. Friend's statement, in particular that aspect of it which enables local authorities to retain 90 per cent. of the receipts from the sale of county farms. Can he tell me who is to decide whether the measures are likely to improve the quality of life in rural areas? Will that be something for the county council, the district council or his Department? When will the scheme come into effect? Can the money be spent only on local government schemes, or may it also be spent in partnership with private landowners?
Mr. Gummer: I am going out to consultation with all those bodies. It would be wrong of me to make decisions in advance. There is a well understood consultation procedure. I hope to see all the spending of the money done in partnerships. It is only through partnership that we get the best value for money.
Mr. Michael Lord: May I welcome the White Paper, and urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the proposals for tree planting? He and I know how much Suffolk will benefit from a few more trees. Will he examine carefully not just how many trees are planted but how many survive and thrive? Unless we make sure that enough money is spent, and care is taken to look after the trees, we will not have the numbers we want. Each year we lose them, we have to start all over again.
Mr. Gummer: That is a fitting question for the president of the Arboricultural Association. I thank my hon. Friend for it. He is right to say that, in Suffolk, where we have adjoining constituencies, we have seen far too much planting of trees which have not survived, particularly in heavy droughts such as the one we have just had. I agree that we must make sure that we get value for the planting, as well as the best value for the money.
Mr. Charles Hendry: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition that agriculture is at the core of rural life, especially in areas such as the High Peak, in spite of adverse farming conditions. I also welcome his rejection of the right to roam proposed by the Labour party, which would be devastating to many farming interests in my constituency and many others.
May I urge him to co-operate with our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture in keeping the hill livestock compensatory allowances, which target grants so effectively into rural communities, while vigorously opposing a minimum wage, which would devastate farms and many other small rural industries?
Mr. Gummer: The right to roam is a matter of concern not only to farmers. Those who are concerned with the

161
conservation of wildlife and want to look after landscapes of various kinds understand that, if the right to roam becomes the right to trample, which it is almost automatically, it damages the countryside. We need to balance the interests of the walker against other interests, in order that we can have a proper countryside.
As for the minimum wage, no part of the economy will be more damaged by it than the rural economy. It shows that the Labour party thinks that the only people who work in the countryside are farm workers. Many other people work in the countryside, and a minimum wage would destroy their opportunity to have a job at all. The Labour party is destructive of countryside employment.
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he share my view that the sustainability and viability of our rural communities and villages depend on a good democratic mix? Does he agree that county councils should be encouraged to provide affordable transportation for young rural people in pursuit of their education?
Mr. Gummer: I certainly recognise the curious system of priorities that led Suffolk county council to spend £2 million on new road signs and cut off the opportunity of 16-year-olds and others to go by bus to higher education institutions. But then, a county council run by the Liberal and Labour parties is likely to do that. I think that it is wrong.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State come back to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at the beginning? Will he now come clean, and admit that many of the problems faced by rural communities, which the White Paper attempts to address, are the direct result of the deregulation policies pursued by the Government over the past 16 years?
Those include the deregulation of buses, which has deprived thousands of local communities of their only form of public transport; the promotion of out-of-town shopping centres at the expense of village shops; the promotion of opencast mining; policies that have dried up the supply of affordable homes for rent and closed village schools and small local hospitals; and a record on crime in which villages, which in the past scarcely encountered theft, drugs or violence, have been left living in fear.
On top of that, the common agricultural policy, which leads to high food prices and harms the environment, costs every family in Britain £20 a week. Unless the White Paper puts all those matters right, it is a waste of paper.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not a credible defender of the countryside. In many senses, that was the
162
worst contribution that he has made on this subject for a very long time. He does not understand that, all over the country, Labour councils are closing village schools without so much as a discussion with parents. He does not understand that, in many areas, deregulation has increased the number of buses available.
As for crime, he does not understand that the Labour party is soft on criminals. It has not supported a single improvement in the fight against crime which we have brought before the House. The hon. Gentleman has never made a speech asking for tougher sentences or more policemen supporting rural areas. Indeed, he has never made a speech about rural areas, so far as I understand.
Mr. Dobson: That is rubbish.
Mr. Gummer: I said, "so far as I understand", and if I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is because he uses words with a curious turn. His usual concern for rural areas is a photo opportunity rather than real concern.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the affirmation required by law: Chris Davies Esq., for Littleborough and Saddleworth.

Home Secretary (Prison Service)
4.34 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will wish to have notice at the earliest possible opportunity that, in view of recent developments and of the Prime Minister's failure to answer questions today, the Opposition have decided to change the subject for the half-day Opposition debate on Thursday this week, and that we will now initiate a debate on the responsibilities of the Home Secretary for the prison service.
Madam Speaker: That will be in order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

HILL LIVESTOCK
That the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1481) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wells.]
Question agreed to.

Elimination of Poverty
4.34 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to monitor the condition of their population; to require central government to publish information on the poverty of the people; to exempt pensioner households from standing charges; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; to equalise retirement ages at 60; to make provision for the calculation of social security benefits by reference to average earnings; and for connected purposes.
This is the 12th occasion on which I have sought leave to introduce such a measure, to recognise the problems that many poor people face and the poverty in which many pensioners are forced to live.
A media silence has been cast over the poverty that exists throughout Britain and over the campaigning work done by many pensioners' organisations to expose the disgracefully low state old age pension and demand fairer treatment. This summer, the Pensioners' Parliament was held in Blackpool, amidst a virtual media blackout of its work, despite its. decisions and widespread support for its call for the state pension to be at least one third of average earnings and uprated annually in line with average earnings.
I will cover some of the points in the Bill in a moment, but the House ought to be aware that the most telling statistic about Britain—one of the richest countries in the world—over the past decade has been that it has had the largest growth in the disparity between rich and poor, and that that is getting worse. People did not always sleep on the streets in this country; they did not always beg. Young people did not always have to sleep in barns and disused garages. We did not always have the sight of people being discharged from mental institutions to beg and roam without any visible means of support. It is a crying shame that such poverty exists in our society. My Bill seeks to draw attention to those problems and proposes some measures to alleviate it.
First, we must establish a national poverty line, which the Government have signally failed to do. The Bill requires the Government to publish information on poverty every year and set a benchmark figure for poverty. Every time such a figure is produced, the Government say that it does not tally with their figures. They have to be brought to account.
The most recent figures for the poverty line were provided by the Social Security Select Committee in January 1993. It reported that, between 1979 and 1989, the number of people at or below benefit level rose from 7.7 million to 11.4 million. Lone parents, the unemployed and pensioners are among the poorest people in the country.
Between 1979 and 1993, the number of individuals in households with incomes of less than half the average went up from 5 million to 14.1 million. That figure included 4 million children. In other words, 4 million children are being brought up in households in a desperate state of poverty. It is small wonder that there is a high level of under-achievement in school, and that so many other social problems are associated with it.
The figures for income change between 1979 and 1989 show that someone who, in 1979, was earning £321 per week was earning £520 per week by 1993; someone
164
earning £171 per week was earning £236. However, some of the poorest people in our society, who in 1979 were on £75 per week, were getting £62 by 1993. In other words, while the income for the richest has gone up by nearly two thirds, the income for the poorest has gone down by 17 per cent. That is a disgrace and a scandal. Those issues must be addressed.
If hon. Members care to read the reports of their local health and medical officers, they will find that, among the poorest people, life expectancy is lowest, the incidence of cancer highest and infant mortality highest. All the indices that led the great social reformers of the 19th century to introduce social reforms demonstrate yet again that the greatest enemy of good health is poverty.
Other statistics are, in many ways, more frightening. The suicide rate, for example, among young men aged 15 to 24 has increased by 75 per cent. 'The increase in the number of pensioners living in poverty who do not have access to an occupational scheme, a private scheme or any other scheme is increasing rapidly.
The Government like to claim that pensioners' incomes have gone up by 34 per cent. since 1979. That is not what people tell me on the streets and in the clubs of my constituency. That is not what one finds at any pensioners' meeting anywhere in the country. One finds the opposite to be the case. There is degrading poverty, especially among older women pensioners. There is the degradation of pensioners queuing up for stale bread outside supermarkets at 5 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, because that is the only way in which they can make ends meet.
The Bill is intended to address some of those problems. It is not possible to describe it all in 10 minutes. I make the point, however, about the huge increase in tax allowances for the richest in our society. If those tax allowances had been evenly distributed rather than handed to the richest, they would have made the poorest household at least £4 a week better off in real terms.
The Bill would require local authorities and health authorities to publish statistics every year on the poverty of the population whom they represent and especially on the services and provisions made available for the elderly within their communities. The Bill would also make the Government publish every year their statistics on the causes of and elimination of poverty within our society.
Many of us are fed up with the consensus that the welfare state is no longer affordable—that the state pension is too high and no longer sustainable, and that we therefore have to go down the road of the private, portable pension scheme. Most people are worse off and more insecure, and they live more precarious lives than was the case 15 years ago. The Bill would address some of those points.
Included in the Bill is a provision exempting pensioner households from standing charges as a way in which to increase the money available to them. In view of the profitability of the gas, electricity and telephone companies, such things are easily affordable. Likewise, all the travel schemes that were brought in by progressive Labour authorities in the 1970s and 1980s are under threat through the privatisation of our transport system. There is a need for a universal, nationwide scheme.
Above all, we must look at the way in which social security entitlements are calculated. In 1980, Geoffrey Howe, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, claimed that

165
his greatest achievement was to break the link between pensions and earnings and to substitute the retail prices index. He has cost every pensioner more than £20 a week by that single decision. The pension is falling from 24 per cent. of average earnings to a mere 10 per cent. of average earnings. On top of that, there is the insult of saying to women in work that they must work until the age of 65 to qualify for a state pension. We should be reducing the age at which people have the right to retire to 60 for both women and men.
This issue will dominate this country for a long time to come. If the policy of continuing to cut the welfare state and to encourage people to take out private health, medical and pension insurance continues, there will be disasters and crises in future. We must change the terms of the debate.
A civilised, decent society would not allow people to sleep on the streets. It would house everybody, and would not allow its senior citizens to live in the abject poverty and misery in which they have to live at present. The Bill would at least guarantee that their increases would be in line with earnings, and there would be a national focus on the problems of poverty for all our people.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Llew Smith, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Bill Michie and Mr. Tony Banks.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to monitor the condition of their population; to require central government to publish information on the poverty of the people; to exempt pensioner households from standing charges; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; to equalise retirement ages at 60; to make provision for the calculation of social security benefits by reference to average earnings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 October, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) read out the title of his Bill, the Elimination of Poverty Bill, he caused great amusement on the part of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to explain to us why he was so highly amused when somebody was talking about grants—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for the Minister.

Orders of the Day

  Defence
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [16 October]:
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995 contained in Cm. 2800.—[Mr. Portillo.]
  Which amendment was: to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995; condemns the continued instability in the armed forces caused by the Government's failure to establish a long-term strategic overview; notes that this undermines the morale and operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom's armed forces and fails to prepare the United Kingdom for the challenges of the post cold war world; calls upon the Government to establish a strategic defence review; deplores the way that United Kingdom defence capabilities and installations are being run down in an unstructured way instead of the Government seeking to manage the worst effects of change on communities and individuals through a defence diversification agency; urges a positive approach in the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and the immediate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention; condemns the Government's financial mismanagement and waste in defence; congratulates the excellent work carried out by British forces throughout the world and expresses pride in their continuing presence in United Nations peacekeeping operations'.—[Dr. David Clark.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  [Relevant documents: The Ninth Report from the Defence Committee on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995, Session 1994–95, HC 572; the First Report from the Defence Committee on the Defence Estate, HC 67; the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 318; the Fifth Report on Defence Costs Study Follow-up: Defence Medical Services, HC 102; the Sixth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 641; the Sixth Report on Defence Use of Civilian Transport Assets and Personnel, HC86; and the Seventh Report on Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance and Target Acquisition, HC 319.]
  4.44 pm
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to the Government motion. Before I start, I must say something about the speeches yesterday by the two Opposition spokesmen on defence, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Before I do, I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for South Shields for wrongly mentioning that he had not moved the motion. He had moved it so I was wrong to say that. All of us, however, who heard those speeches found them to be truly disturbing and, perhaps, an exceptional revelation because they demonstrated an inherent triviality, a total lack of understanding and an apparent lack of any concern for the big and complicated issues that dominate defence today.
  Of course, we understand that the Labour party is on difficult ground. It is wedged between very real internal splits on defence, astonishing superficiality and ignorance and, in the case of the hon. Member for Carlisle, an almost hopeless naivety combined with an unhealthy obsession with something called sexism.
  It is plain that Labour simply does not understand the armed forces. It has no vision and no strategy for defence; its views are null, void and invalid. Labour is, in short,

  167
  wholly unconvincing and, as every sensible person in the land knows, it could not and cannot be trusted with the defence of the realm.
  Dr. John Gilbert: While the Minister is in an unusually apologetic mood, may I ask him whether he is correctly quoted at column 115 as saying that this party, of which I am a member, has for the past four elections been "entirely unilateralist and pacifist"? Is he correctly quoted? Would he like to amend that remark or, if not, would he repeat it outside the House?
  Mr. Soames: I was referring to the manifestos and not to the honourable exceptions, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who have always championed the cause of multilateral defence.
  One of the recurring themes of yesterday's debate was the many expressions of pleasure at the success of the VE and VJ day celebrations. This is an appropriate occasion for us to reflect on what has been a most significant and poignant year. The whole nation came together to remember how much we all owe to the wartime generation and the armed forces were able to pay their own tribute to the past in a series of dignified and extremely moving ceremonies.
  The House was able to pay its own unique and touching tribute through Madam Speaker. Some 57 world leaders gathered in London to mark the end of the war in Europe. It seemed that the entire nation paused in solemn and grateful reflection for the two-minute silence on the evening of 8 May.
  I think, however, that the images that will rest longest in many of our minds were those of VJ day—of the millions of poppies drifting down from a Lancaster bomber and of the rank on rank of veterans, no longer the forgotten army, marching past Her Majesty in a seemingly endless stream. It is unlikely that there will ever again be a parade of such pride and distinction as when the nation united around the person of the sovereign to give due honour to worthy pride and still, in many cases, to remember unforgettable and inconsolable sadness.
  I had the honour when in Ottawa a few weeks ago, on my way to visit our troops training at Suffield in Canada, to unveil a stone plaque at the foot of the Canadians' beautiful and impressive national war memorial. It was a tribute from all the people of Britain to the 111,548 heroic and selfless Canadians who gave their lives in the cause of peace and freedom in two world wars. It was a small but truly heartfelt token of the solemn gratitude, respect and admiration of the British people to the Canadians for their supreme gallantry and almost incredible endurance in circumstances which today are almost beyond the call of modern imagination.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the declining band of people who served in the far east were particularly touched and impressed by the remarkable dignity of the VJ celebrations? Will he assure the House that the Government will not forget them in the future, particularly those who were prisoners of war of the Japanese?
  Mr. Soames: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that one of the central points of the celebrations was the tribute and promise parade when just such a promise was made and just such a tribute was paid.
  168
  All the countries that fought alongside us are bound together with us still to this day by sometimes hidden but nevertheless profound ties of blood and sentiment which have stood the test of time. The message of the commemorations is that we must ensure that the awful sacrifices of our forebears and their courage, comradeship and sense of purpose are put to good use in this disorderly and dangerous world. The VE-VJ celebrations showed that their actions still command to this day the wonder, the reverence and the gratitude of the British people.
  The House will, I know, wish to congratulate the world war 2 commemoration team at the Ministry of Defence on its wholly remarkable work in staging many of these unforgettable events.
  Mr. David Martin: May I tell my hon. Friend how much his presence in Portsmouth was appreciated during the course of the commemorations and how much I endorse what he has just said? In Portsmouth, they do not feel forgotten any longer.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the highlights of the commemorations were the celebrations for the forgotten fleet. I pay tribute to the town of Portsmouth and all those who organised what was a deeply memorable and moving parade and one which I shall never forget.
  Mr. David Winnick: When the Minister pays tribute, as he rightly does, to all those who fought, suffered and died in the last war, is not it necessary for us to remember that we were collaborating with other countries to defeat fascism and, though many of us may have many reservations about possible developments in the European Union, many of us were sickened by the sort of xenophobia demonstrated by the Secretary of State for Defence in Blackpool last week? Surely the last thing that we want to do is to create such anti-foreign and anti-European feeling which causes such deep offence abroad, and rightly so.
  Mr. Soames: That was a uniquely foolish and stupid point to make, my having paid a lasting tribute to all those who fought beside us, and particularly in front of my right hon. Friend who had himself done exactly the same thing yesterday. But I suppose it comes of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  I come now to the quite exceptional range of activities in which the armed forces have been involved during the last year. Given both the events of the last few months and the quite extraordinary achievements and efforts of the British forces in the theatre, I will start with the former Yugoslavia. All told, there are currently some 8,000 personnel from the United Kingdom on the ground in the former Yugoslavia. About 3,000 more act in support of United Nations and NATO operations.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a handsome and warm tribute to the part played by the British forces in the United Nations and NATO operations to make Sarajevo safe for the civilian population following the brutal marketplace attack on 28 August. Twenty eight British aircraft—Tornado F3s, Harrier GR7s, laser-designating Jaguars, and Sea Harriers from HMS Invincible—all played their part in this the largest air operation in the alliance's history.
  On the ground, 19 regiment Royal Artillery, the Highland Gunners, from the rapid reaction force, provided vital support from their positions on Mount Igman. They

  169
  have now been dug in on Mount Igman for more than 80 days—a truly impressive example of toughness, endurance and resolve.
  In central Bosnia, British forces remain at the forefront of the United Nations efforts to sustain the peace between the Croats and Muslims. That work is not as exciting to the media as air strikes and, as such, is more often than not overlooked by them, but we should be in no doubt as to its importance. It too is a difficult and sometimes extremely dangerous task. We saw the steadiness and courage displayed by the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 24th of foot, during the hostage-taking incident in May this year.
  For almost two years now, peace, albeit a fragile one, has existed between the Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia. British forces have been absolutely key in sustaining and nurturing this. They have helped to reconnect water and electricity supplies, to mend roads and to rebuild schools. They are working with local people and they are slowly helping them to take back control of their own lives and, with skill and patience, they are quietly laying the foundations for a lasting peace.
  Mr. Llew Smith: As the Minister is describing our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, would he care to comment on the fact that we supplied many of the arms which almost certainly have been used in the present conflict?
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman entered into a rather futile discussion on those lines last night which I do not propose to continue.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that to carry out those and other important tasks the strength of regimental tradition is most important? Does he further agree that it does not help troops if they are second guessed by an army of accountants and experts in Whitehall when they need reasonable discretion on the ground under their own officers, commands and orders? Will my hon. Friend look favourably on many of the points made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the excellence of our troops and the importance of supporting that excellence?
  Mr. Soames: There was a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said in the debate last night with which I profoundly disagreed and there were a number of things with which I wholly agreed, as my hon. Friend knows, one of them being that the regimental system is the backbone of the British Army. I have to tell my right hon. Friend, even though I know that it will come as a terrible shock to him, that there is no question of anyone second guessing commanders' choices and decisions on the ground. Commanders make their own choices and decisions within the orders that they are given. My right hon. Friend, with his background, before he felt that he had to leave these places of high authority, will know that the Royal Welch Fusiliers sustain themselves in their hour of trial with years and generations of experience and loyalty, and that no other regiment in the British Army would have been more fit to be under seige than the 24th of foot.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Soames: No, I must continue.
  170
  In the Adriatic, the Royal Navy continues to play an important role. Her Majesty's ships Brazen and Glasgow are enforcing the arms embargo and trade sanctions—
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Having served in a famous regiment himself, I am sure that my hon. Friend needs no lectures from me on the regimental tradition. But is he aware that the Bett report, which he defended last night, says at paragraph 7.13 that the proposals would not be compatible with the existing regimental system?
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend seems to have difficulty understanding that the Bett report is not a settled piece of Government policy. The Bett report is a consultation document which, as we have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, is being considered at some length by many working groups within the Ministry of Defence. Some of the recommendations in the Bett report will not see the light of common day and some will. It is an excellent piece of work which is considered by all three services to be worthy of the most serious consideration.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I acknowledge everything that the Minister has said about the excellent work that has been done by the British forces in UNPROFOR over the years. I have seen some of it for myself and I know that the British troops are as keen as any to play their part in peacekeeping and in protecting humanitarian aid. Can he therefore explain to me why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that the British forces deployed on Mount Igman were not prepared to do what their French counterparts were doing to protect British humanitarian aid convoys?
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman took up more than his fair share of the debate last night. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman made a perfect nuisance of himself at a time when we were extremely busily engaged. [Interruption.] I acknowledged last night the admirable work that the hon. Gentleman has done with Edinburgh Direct Aid. I applaud what he did, but I do not share his interpretation of the events that he describes.
  In addition, the Royal Navy Carrier Group, which currently includes Invincible and Boxer, remains on station to provide support for the British contingent if necessary. Earlier in the year, I was delighted to return to Bosnia; as always, I was extremely impressed by the work being carried out by our forces in their peacekeeping role.
  I visited Gioia del Colle in Italy, where the Jaguars and Tornados are based. From Italy, I flew on to Illustrious before visiting the Royal Highland Fusiliers in Vitez, the household cavalry regiment in Maglaj, the Royal Welch Fusiliers at Bugogno and men of the Royal Engineers at a number of locations. I was also delighted to visit the detachment of 845 Naval Air Squadron with its Sea King helicopters based at Split. That squadron has played an unbelievably distinguished role, taking part in many life-saving operations, often in the most hostile and difficult conditions, and they deserve great credit.
  Further east, it is easy to forget that a significant British presence has remained in the Gulf region since the expulsion of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to clear up a point that he made in his winding-up speech yesterday? He said:
  "Not only have we not gone too far but there … will be further cuts and attempts to keep down the cost of the way in which we do our business."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]

  171
  Will my hon. Friend confirm that he agrees with the Prime Minister, who said that there would be no further cuts in the overall defence budget in the future, and that his remarks were aimed solely at cutting, within the overall budget, areas that he thought could be cut without jeopardising the front line?
  Mr. Soames: I made plain what I meant in my speech last night. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that I am well aware of what I said. What I said, and what I meant, was that the Ministry of Defence is a very large organisation that can never be complacent about bearing down on its costs. Its administrative costs, like those of any major organisation, will need to be ruthlessly trimmed at all times, in order particularly to preserve—as the Prime Minister said—the integrity and stability of the front line. I meant nothing more and nothing less than that.
  I have just returned from visiting the Royal Air Force squadrons deployed as part of the coalition operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch. Those operations enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.
  There is no doubt about the need for continued vigilance in regard to Saddam Hussein. As the House will be aware, Ambassador Ekeus issued a report to the UN Security Council last week. He confirmed that Iraq is still far from complying with UN resolutions. For the first time, we have a detailed catalogue of Saddam Husseins's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The report includes shocking details of Iraq's biological weapons programme. It is vital that the international community continue its stand that Iraq must comply with the Security Council resolutions. Until then, it is clear that Iraq will remain a threat to the region and to our strategic interests.
  Alongside our coalition partners—the United States, France, Turkey and our Gulf allies—we have worked to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. To date, the Royal Air Force has flown over 12,000 sorties aimed at deterring repression of the Iraqi people, observing military activity and policing the no-fly zones.
  The no-fly zones present dangerous conditions and a testing environment. The men and women whom I met at Incirlick, Dhahran and Riyadh are playing a vital role in keeping the pressure on Saddam Hussein. They have won the admiration and respect of their coalition partners for their bravery in daily flying into a potentially hazardous and very dangerous scenario. It is a measure of their guts and pure determination that the RAF's operational mission success rate stands at over 96 per cent.
  Six Tornado GR1s and one VC10 tanker are deployed to each operation. They fly an average of 17 operational flying hours a day; in all, there are some 200 sorties a month. These operations underline the importance that we continue to attach to monitoring activities in Iraq. They send a clear message to the Iraqi dictator that we will not tolerate any repetition of the adventurism and disregard for international law that he has previously displayed.
  The House will recall—with pleasure, I am sure—the rapid and emphatic international response to Saddam's provocative action last October. The spearhead battalion and additional Tornado aircraft were deployed to Kuwait within 48 hours.
  Those two operations, Provide Comfort and Southern Watch, are truly formidable, and the people of this country can be very proud of the RAF's contribution.
  172
  As the House knows, the United Kingdom has continued to be a leading contributor to peacekeeping operations. At the time of last year's debate, a British contingent 600 strong was about two thirds of the way through a three-month deployment to Rwanda. Logistics specialists had made substanial improvements in the force's supply organisation, and 23 Para Field Ambulance gave crucial and brilliant medical care to returning refugees, many of whom owe their lives to those young men and women. A field squadron from the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers helped to reconstruct Rwanda's shattered infrastructure. It was a model deployment of its type, and we were pleased to be able to help that suffering and sad country in some way.
  Elsewhere in Africa, between 8 February and 3 March this year the destroyer HMS Exeter joined an international task group to protect the UN forces withdrawing from Somalia. More recently, a British logistics battalion of some 650 personnel returned from a three-month deployment to Angola, where it set up the logistics infrastructure for the United Nations Angola verification mission. All three services were represented in that thoroughly joint operation in the British contingent, which was supported by the royal fleet auxiliary Sir Galahad.
  By the time that it left in early August, the battalion had established and handed over to the United Nations a fully comprehensive system for receiving, storing and distributing supplies to peacekeepers in the field. Their contribution to the crucial early stages of the operation has been warmly praised by the United Nations commander, and they deserve the greatest possible credit.
  The services also provided extensive assistance in the Caribbean during a recent spate of natural disasters. On 20 July, the West Indies guard ship Southampton and the royal fleet auxiliary Oakleaf were diverted to Montserrat when volcanic activity started on the island. Experts and advisers were also sent from the British military advisory and training team in Barbados to help prepare for a possible evacuation. A small team from the Irish Guards arrived shortly afterwards, with men from the Royal Marines fleet standby rifle company who were later deployed to provide internal security assistance for the Royal Montserrat police force, while men of the commando logistics regiment were deployed to Antigua to help prepare for any evacuees. The units involved were also able to help clear up in the aftermath of the hurricanes Luis and Marilyn.
  It is easy to describe the operations that capture media attention—however fleetingly—but it is not only service men and women deployed on those operations who support our defence interests overseas. I want to mention two groups of people who hold very responsible and important assignments, yet rarely receive any credit. I speak first of the 119 attachés and defence advisers, and their wives, who support our defence interests in 71 countries around the world. That is vital work for our wider national interest.
  Secondly, more than 400 personnel from the three services are employed in an advisory or training capacity in 24 countries and territories. They are a critical factor in cementing good defence relations, and in helping our friends to provide for their own security and that of the regions in which they live.
  But, of course, it is close to home where, over recent years, the most sacrifices have been made. In the past 18 months, there have been some wonderful changes for the

  173
  better in Northern Ireland. When I first visited the Province, the ceasefires were a new and uncertain development; in succeeding months, hopes and expectations of a lasting peace have grown steadily as people have become used to living without the terror of the bomb and the bullet. They will not lightly forgive anyone who returns to violence.
  All three services have made an outstanding and incalculable contribution over the past 26 years to the Government's endeavours to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland and to restore normality. In particular I should like to single out for mention the contribution of the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and their forerunners in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Their sacrifices over the years and their continued bravery deserve our unqualified admiration and respect.
  As Armed Forces Minister, it is one of my greatest pleasures and one of my primary duties to visit as many units of the armed forces, and the civilians who support them, as possible. I have in the past year managed to visit over 50 different service units both here and overseas. They have included visits to command headquarters of all three services; operational RAF stations; ships of the Royal Navy; and regiments both on their home bases and deployed on operations and overseas.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I know that the Minister has visited both RAF bases in my constituency. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men who so tragically lost their lives in the Nimrod accident in Canada? In paying tribute to all who work in related defence areas, will he perhaps tell us when he expects the inquiry to be completed, since speculation brings no consolation to the relatives?
  Mr. Soames: First, I wholly endorse the sentiment behind the hon. Lady's question. Secondly, I thank the Canadians for the unbelievable help they gave our military staff in Ottawa, who were under great pressure and handled the matter with distinction and sensitivity. Thirdly, I praise the hon. Lady for her unstinting support for the RAF, whose members regularly tell me how grateful they are for her support.
  As to the board of inquiry, these matters take a very long time. There is no intention to delay on our part: only a resolve to get to the bottom of events and to find out what happened.
  I had the great pleasure a few weeks ago of going to Canada to visit the training areas of Suffield and Wainwright, where we train nearly 20,000 British soldiers a year in the most high intensity end of the land battle. These are exceptional training areas; they provide the most exacting conditions, not only for live firing but for use of the tactical engagement simulation, which has revolutionised Army training and which will continue to do so.
  The House should be extremely proud of the way all three services have managed, even in a period of prolonged and easy peace, to maintain the highest possible standard of training at the high intensity end of conflict. Were it not for this, the forces would not be nearly as good as they are at peacekeeping operations. It is because of the strength, discipline and skill that they derive from
  174
  training hard that they can undertake peacekeeping operations so successfully. We are resolved at all costs to maintain these skills.
  I have also tried wherever possible to spend time at some of those units that are perhaps less in the limelight than some of our front-line troops but who nevertheless make an invaluable contribution. Places such as the Army school of catering—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I bet he enjoyed that.
  Mr. Soames: I did indeed. It is safe to say that they laid on a very good show. Such places as the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency would perhaps not spring immediately to mind for someone planning a programme of service visits, but to visit them gives one not only a feel of the enormous depth and breadth of skills but an indication of the exceptional size of the areas of business in which the services are involved.
  In debating the activities in which the armed forces are currently engaged, the focus will tend naturally to be on our regular forces. So I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Government's wholehearted recognition of the vital contribution that the reserves make to our defence capabilities. We are very lucky in this country to have so many splendid people who are prepared to give up their time in these vital tasks.
  Earlier in the year, a composite company from the Territorial Army was deployed to the Falkland Islands. The deployment was a great success and it is likely to be followed by others. In addition, members of the Territorial Army continue to undertake short periods of service to fill vacant posts in units deploying on operational tours and exercises.
  The numbers vary from day to day. But let me give the House a snapshot. On 30 September this year there were two reservists serving in support of the enforcement of the no-fly zone in northern Iraq, and 82 supporting operations in the former Yugoslavia. Wherever they are and whatever they do, they make an invaluable contribution.
  What of the future? Over the years, the reserves have adapted to meet changing circumstances and commitments and have become experts in a wide range of skills. I want to leave the House in no doubt of our absolute intention to maintain sizeable reserve forces, and of our commitment to enhancing their role within the one-army concept. On 30 March this year, I announced the publication of "Strength in Reserve". We were delighted with the response: 504 written responses were received. Most supported our proposals. I know that many reservists have responded enthusiastically to the policy of using reserves more flexibly, and that they welcome the opportunities that the new legislation will offer them.
  Having covered both the regular and reserve forces, I must take an opportunity to thank the Department's civilian work force for its vital and irreplaceable contribution. Much has been asked of it, as it has of the services, in driving forward much needed and important changes in the structure and organisation of the MOD, in improving the quality of service, and in achieving greater efficiency.
  Civilian staff fill crucial roles. The caricature of the civilian at the MOD is one that I, having served there for a year and a half, deeply despise. They provide invaluable

  175
  support in every theatre and operation in which they serve. The rationalisation of the way in which the MOD carries out its activities, as set out in "Front Line First", is steadily being achieved and they are playing a full part during this great period of unsettling change.
  Civilians do all this notwithstanding the massive upheaval for many hundreds of individuals and their families who are necessarily being redeployed to different areas of the country, or transferring with their work to agencies and to organisations within the private sector, or regrettably facing unavoidable redundancy.
  We are very fortunate with our civilian staff, and I want to pay a warm and sincere tribute to their work at all levels of the Ministry of Defence.
  I should now like to bring the House up to date with a number of important matters on which we have recently made decisions. The first of these concerns the Royal Marines units currently based in Plymouth. Following detailed consultation, I have today, with my right hon. Friend, decided that the Commando Logistics Regiment, whose living and working bases are currently split between Seaton and Coypool in Plymouth, and 59 Independent Commando 'Squadron of the Royal Engineers, currently based at Seaton, should move to Chivenor.
  This arrangement will produce savings of about £2 million a year in running costs for the Royal Marines. More importantly; however, there will be significant operational and administrative advantages. At present the scope for training of both units is limited. At Chivenor it will be possible to fit both units, which are in many respects interdependent, to live, work and train together on the same site with modern, well appointed facilities.
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): As a graduate of the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the Royal Marines, may I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's announcement? Chivenor is the station that never closes. In that regard, will my hon. Friend ensure that the aviation facilities remain available, since it will be useful to be able to deploy C130s and helicopters into the station?
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who honourably wears two hats in this context. He is a former RAF officer who was attached to Chivenor and thus understandably resentful about being made to give it up; but he is also a graduate of the Marines armed forces scheme. I endorse what he says. There is no plan to degrade the runway; and we shall be in consultation with the Department of Transport as to the best way forward.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: The community of North Devon will warmly welcome the Minister's announcement. The RAF has always enjoyed a close relationship with everyone in North Devon, and I have every confidence that the same warmth of welcome will be given to the Marines when they arrive.
  I also echo remarks made about the future of the runway, about which we are all very anxious. If any shared use of the runway can be found that would make it viable, that would be to the benefit of all.
  Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was in his constituency not long ago speaking for the young man who will be replacing him in the House after
  176
  the next election and I was left in no doubt as to the level of support that exists. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has always been supportive of the services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will know that Chivenor is an outstanding base. It has wonderful facilities—I pay tribute to the Royal Air Force for the excellent facilities that it left behind there. As I have said, I understand its resentment at having to give Chivenor up, but Chivenor has gone to a good home and I know that the Royal Marines will love and cherish it.
  The second decision concerns the base porting arrangements for royal naval vessels. All royal naval vessels are now base ported at one of the three naval bases, Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane.
  Against the background of the successful outcome of the "Front Line First" studies, we have been considering what arrangements should apply to the landing platform helicopter HMS Ocean, which, for the benefit of Opposition Members, is a ship, when she enters service in 1997 and to the planned replacement for the current landing platform docks, HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless—they are also ships. We have also considered whether any consequential adjustments might be necessary to the existing plan for other vessels.
  After detailed consideration, I have decided that HMS Ocean should be based at Devonport and that she should be joined in due course by the planned replacement LPDs. We conclude that there are clear operational advantages in concentrating the amphibious vessels in Plymouth in close proximity to Royal Marine commando units based there. I can also confirm that the planned move to Portsmouth of five type 23 frigates and of some minor war vessels is proceeding.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for keeping me informed of developments on the helicopter carrier and the LPD replacements, will he confirm that he has taken full account of the focus of Royal Marine activity in Whale Island in Portsmouth and also of the availability of the amphibious training ground in Browndown in my constituency? Will he confirm that putting replacement ships in Plymouth, Devonport as opposed to Portsmouth, will not in any weaken the Royal Navy's commitment to Portsmouth?
  Mr. Soames: I am completely happy to give my hon. Friend, who has done so much to support the Royal Navy in Portsmouth over the years and to whom I know it is grateful, my absolute assurance that Portsmouth will remain central to the Royal Navy's operating requirements. This is a sensible and natural move. I am wholly behind it and it is completely the right thing to do. I acknowledge the wonderful facilities at Portsmouth and I have no doubt that fine use will continue to be made of them.
  I deeply share the concern and distress of people in Plymouth who have been through a difficult time. Eighteen hundred marines will remain in Plymouth, even though the Commando Logistics Regiment is moving out, and I hope that the people of Plymouth will be pleased by the announcement that it will become the centre of amphibious excellence in the Royal Marines. I share the words of my hon. Friend about the importance of Portsmouth.

  177
  Last month, I also confirmed that the Royal Naval air station at Portland would close by 1 April 1999 and that the restructured naval support command headquarters would be relocated in the Bath-Bristol region.
  During the Army debate in February, I confirmed that, as a result of savings from the defence costs study, we would be able to increase the number of front line army units by re-rolling the Royal Armoured Corps Training Regiment. I have decided that that regiment—the 9/12 Lancers—should be located at Swanton Morley in Norfolk.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has announced in a written reply earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), we have selected Rosyth 2000 Ltd. as our preferred bidder for the purchase of Rosyth naval base. My hon. Friend the Minister will make a full statement towards the end of today's debate.
  I have spoken at some length of the activities undertaken by our armed forces, both overseas and in the UK and I am extremely sorry to have spoken for so long and grateful to the House for its indulgence. I have a few more things I want to say.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister mentioned Rosyth and the future of the naval base but he will be aware that, in the past months, there has been considerable speculation about the refitting of submarines and surface ships, and a decision that had previously been taken as between Devonport and Rosyth has appeared to be under review. Will he be a little more unequivocal about that than Ministry of Defence spokesmen have been able to be in the press in the past two or three months?
  Mr. Soames: I hope that hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not stretch into that issue, which is not within my responsibility. My hon. Friend the Minister will, however, be dealing with that tonight and, I know, will be glad to mention that.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend going to say anything at all about the cadet forces?
  Mr. Soames: It is about the only thing that I am afraid I am not going to have time to discuss. I wish to talk about a number of other things and my hon. Friend and I know what they are, but we simply have not time for everything and they got a good canter last year.
  We have formidable armed forces and we must ensure that we can continue to recruit and retain people of the same high quality for the armed forces of tomorrow. It is against that background that Sir Michael Bett's independent review of service career and manpower structures was commissioned. We are now studying its wide-ranging recommendations and I note the concern expressed in the House yesterday by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. That work is being taken forward in a number of major and detailed studies and our aim is to have completed the work in time to make a definitive statement on the way ahead in the spring of next year.
  There is one important point of doctrine that I should stress publicly in the House. This is a good moment for me to stress this and I hope that I will have the support of the Opposition. My ministerial colleagues and I are determined to pursue joint operations and joint working
  178
  wherever we can and wherever it is sensible to do so. That represents a sea change in the way in which the Department and the armed forces conduct their business.
  This year's White Paper includes special features on the most visible expressions of that change: the permanent joint headquarters, the joint rapid deployment force, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a further announcement yesterday, and the joint service command and staff college. Those projects are all being implemented and we look forward to the activation of the PJHQ and the joint rapid deployment force next year. Over time, they will bring about a marked change in the way in which we conduct our business, in the way in which our young officers are trained, in the way in which our units operate together, and in the way in which our forces are commanded. All those will be changes for the better.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Has the Minister read the report in yesterday's Independent which casts doubts on the estimates of the cost of the establishment of the joint service college at Camberley? Are the estimates contained in the paper presented with the defence estimates that there will be substantial savings still correct, and can the target date of 1997 be achieved, given that the Independent indicates that that is unlikely?
  Mr. Soames: I do not wish to elude the question, but I have not read the report. A good deal of work is going on on that project and I will gladly examine the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and let him know. I am afraid that I returned from abroad only yesterday.
  Those projects are not an end in themselves. The move towards joint working does not end with them—quite the opposite. This is not just some passing politically correct fad that will go away. In future, joint working must underlie everything that we do. The concept of joint operations will dominate.
  In the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, we can see that the missions on which our armed forces will be engaged will require them to operate jointly. "Front Line First" showed us how joint working can both improve their effectiveness and cost us less. In future, therefore, our goal is to inject joint working from the cradle to the grave in military doctrine, in training and exercises, in operations, in the way in which we approach decisions on the projects on which we spend money, and in administration. In short, we think that we have to think and act jointly.
  I want to conclude by saying a few general words about the services and again I apologise for speaking at some length—[Interruption.] I am getting on with it. I hope that our country still understands how proud it should be of our armed forces and of the way in which they carry out their duties, often in difficult circumstances and sometimes in dangerous conditions in this country and abroad. It is sometimes said that the services are reluctant to change—that is a favourite hobby-horse of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). That is not the impression that anyone receives who knows the services or works with them. I know of no other institution in Britain that has so readily and willingly adapted throughout its time to change. A journalist recently remarked that as so many other British institutions seem to be undergoing an almost total systems failure only the armed forces have maintained a high degree of credibility and a unity of purpose and performance. He went on to

  179
  say that he believed that their "can do" attitude seduced and impressed a country that, somehow too often feels that it cannot.
  We live in a period of revolution—social, technological and political. That is extremely uncomfortable and it destabilises people. The organisations that survive revolution need to be imaginative, courageous, adaptable and flexible and need to bring in new ideas. Those are, above all, the qualities of the modern service man and woman. I hope that the House will listen to what I am saying because it is important.
  In their standard of personal conduct and respect for the law, in their team work, cohesion and trust and in their highly developed sense of duty and obligation they are an institution which is wholly unique in this land and are a priceless and golden asset, for not only the defence of the realm but the vigorous promotion of Britain's national interest all over the world. I believe that their qualities are almost unique and it is important that our fellow citizens understand what makes up the traditions and institutions of the British armed forces rather than the complete caricature suggested by the hon. Member for Carlisle last night. They are so admired because of their comradeship, team spirit, loyalty and true but never jingoistic patriotism. The emotional, intellectual and moral qualities—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: No I will not.
  The emotional, intellectual and moral qualities which lead people to put their lives on the line are there for all to see on almost every occasion one cares to choose.
  What I think sets the services apart from all the other institutions in the land is the general exceptional qualities of its leadership. I know that the hon. Member for Carlisle finds those qualities offensive. We are lucky with the young men and women whom we are able to recruit, but they would be largely ineffective were it not for the exceptional standards of leadership that the forces have retained.
  Potential officers in all three services are trained to be fit, resilient and inspirational young leaders who will accept discipline and danger, discomfort and separation and who can lead in peace and, more importantly, in adversity with true professionalism and a real understanding of and care for those whom they command.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: No I will not.
  I am confident that at all levels and all ranks the services will continue to produce such men and women and I am sure that they will learn, as did their parents and grandparents, that at some time in their career they may have to depend on their colleagues and comrades for their very survival. Above all, they will develop a willingness to do things that are wholly contrary to every natural instinct because of a binding and, in modern terms, an almost magical unselfish commitment to others as well as to their families, their regiments, their queen and their country.
  The Conservative Government have kept British forces strong. Their reputation is unmatched by any other armed forces in the world. They are truly formidable and it is our solemn commitment to the nation that we must and
  180
  will stay strong because Conservatives know that there is no other way to defend and preserve British ideals and the British way of life.
  In our armed forces we are blessed with men and women of a quality not found in any other institution in the land today. What is more, we know that the nation values them for what they are and not for what the Labour party would want them to be. The Government will maintain armed forces which will continue to be highly trained, highly motivated and at the forefront of technology. This year's statement on the defence estimates explains how we will achieve that.
  We will all listen with care and interest to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) as he sets out how the Labour party would set about the defence of the realm. The nation knows that the defence of the realm can never be safe in the Labour party's hands, old or new, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government's motion and to reject out of hand the Labour amendment.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman I must apologise because at the beginning of the debate I failed to inform the House of the fact that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on the speeches of Back Bench Members between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: I recognise the importance of this debate to many hon. Friends and Conservative Members. I know that many of them want to participate and I will do my best to ensure that Front Bench spokesmen do not take up much more time.
  I found the final part of the Minister's speech offensive. He tried to slur the reputation of the Labour party by suggesting that it is unpatriotic. That is unworthy of someone holding his office. In a quieter moment I think that the Minister will reflect on those comments and realise that they should not have been said during the debate.
  Throughout its history the Labour party has supported the British armed forces—(Interruption.]
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Minister talked about round objects.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister finds it easy to speak from his position on the Front Bench. He should recognise that what he said is offensive to some and what he just said is offensive to many of those who have given their lives or who have made a contribution. Literally thousands or millions of those people will have friends who are Labour supporters and they will not believe that the Labour party is in any way unpatriotic. It was unworthy of the Minister and the House for him to make that comment.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that at various times during his speech today the Minister appealed to the Opposition to join him in certain aspects while, at the same time, engaging in that rather cheap, silly and certainly over-simplified party political hacking which is best reserved for the annual Conservative conference? It is not only insulting but it is illogical when he chooses to seek enjoinment.
  Mr. Fatchett: I agree totally with my hon. Friend, but I will move on.
  Mr. Bill Walker: It would be nonsense for anyone anywhere to suggest that someone is unpatriotic simply because they support or vote for the Labour party. What must be addressed is which Government and which party look like doing the best by the armed forces. The record demonstrates clearly that the Conservatives are better.
  Mr. Fatchett: It is rare for me to compliment the hon. Gentleman on a statesmanlike intervention. He set out the terms of genuine party political debate. We will argue that the record of the Labour party and of Labour in office refutes the allegations made. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) set out the debate in the right terms.
  I should like to pay tribute to the forces and the role that they play. I join the Minister in thanking those involved in the commemorations for VE day and VJ day and I should like to remember all those who made sacrifices during the second world war. I agree that we must not just see those sacrifices in a vacuum. We must recognise that they were made for a political, purpose, which was to preserve freedom and democracy. While we enjoy freedom of speech in the House we must recognise that others made sacrifices so that we could have this debate today. The lesson for all of us is that we must be vigilant in our attempts to preserve and strengthen democracy. That is the lesson from this century.
  Like the Minister I wish to thank the forces who are playing their part in 24 countries around the world. I shall not go on the Minister's Cook's tour and I have not had an opportunity to visit all those troops. However, we recognise the contribution that they are making. I share with the Minister his views on the prospects for peace in Northern Ireland and on the changing character and atmosphere of the Province. We hope that the peace process will continue.
  There were constant references to Bosnia during yesterday's debate. I thank our troops for the contribution that they have made in that country. We all know that the issue of Bosnia has divided each side of the House and that great passions have been roused. Three key points came out of the references to Bosnia in the speeches of all my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members yesterday.
  The first point is that without the military intervention of the United Nations and NATO, humanitarian relief for thousands of people in Bosnia would not have been secured. We are grateful for and proud of our country's contribution to that. Secondly, it is fair to argue that because of our intervention we have been able to prevent the fighting and war in parts of the former Yugoslavia from spreading to other parts. That is a success for which we must be grateful.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with the assertion that I am about to make on the third point, which opens up substantial political debate. As politicians, we have a responsibility to define the role that UN and NATO troops must play in every theatre. The difficulty with the operation in Bosnia is that we have not always been clear about whether we have been talking about a peacekeeping or a peacemaking role. When we look back at the history of Bosnia in a few years' time, I suspect that the lesson we will learn is that we should have been clear in our own minds about exactly what we wanted the troops to do and
  182
  then back that politically. On many occasions we have given way to pressure, which has meant that the political message and the political direction have not always been consistent.
  I give the Minister of State an opportunity to do something that he should have done earlier—to withdraw his churlish remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). My hon. Friend has a proud record of helping to bring relief to many people in Bosnia, and doing it in a way that no other hon. Member has done. It was very wrong of the Minister to refer to my hon. Friend as someone who made a nuisance of himself yesterday on the question of Bosnia. The Minister should look at my hon. Friend's speech yesterday and withdraw his remarks. I give him the opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Soames: I have absolutely no intention of apologising to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I have to tell the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that he has confused peacemaking with peace enforcing—a mere detail, but one that he might wish to consider.
  I must point out that I have already paid a handsome tribute to the hon. Member for East Lothian. He surely cannot want me to do so every five minutes. I said that he had done well in Bosnia. I am not prepared to enter into an argument across the House about who said what about whom because I am aware that he was stuck in a difficult position in Bosnia. However, that does not alter the fact that he did very well. If I was him, I would stop banging on about it.
  Mr. Fatchett: I gave the Minister an opportunity to make a gracious apology. He failed to do so and the House will have noted that.
  The key point about the Bosnian experience and, indeed, many of the other experiences to which the Minister referred, is that they have occurred under the auspices of either NATO or the UN. There has been co-operation, there has been dual command and there have been joint operations. In his speech yesterday, the Secretary of State referred 11 times to the need for international co-operation; 11 times he spoke about the benefit of international institutions and countries working together to meet the need of common security.
  Anyone who had the opportunity to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool last week must have wondered what happened during the week since then. Yesterday, it was a speech was written by civil servants but delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. Last week, it was a speech written by an immature young person and then delivered to a Conservative party conference. The right hon. Gentleman made crude appeals to nationalism and jingoism to improve his personal political standing in the Conservative party.
  We are aware of the argument that is taking place. Indeed, we saw it earlier. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the man who really did challenge for the leadership, the man who dared—not the man who quoted the SAS, but the man who dared to challenge the leadership—came here this afternoon to represent one wing of the Conservative party and to try to claim the ground from the Secretary of State on the question of who is the real champion of the right in the Tory party. Is not it the truth that Opposition Members

  183
  have a greater regard for our armed forces and our national security? We will not allow internal party arguments or internal party ambitions to deflect us from important national issues.
  The debate and division in the Tory party was out in the open last night. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) made an important speech which is worth quoting. In referring to the Secretary of State's Blackpool speech, he said:
  "1 … feel that that was not the time for him … to make some of the comments that he made … The fact remains that the people whom he criticised are our allies within NATO and the Western European Union."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 109.]
  It is not just the hon. Member for Wyre who has criticised the Defence Secretary. Criticism has also come from Lord Gilmour, someone who should not be dismissed lightly by Conservative Members. In the past, he has spoken on defence issues from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Conservative party. What did he say about the Defence Secretary's Blackpool speech in last Friday's Evening Standard? He said:
  "No prominent member of a mainstream political party in any other western European country could have made Portillo's speech. Even the Italian neo-Fascists might have shrunk from it."
  The point is that the Secretary of State debased his office in his speech last week.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard German Ministers speaking? If he has, he may wish to withdraw what he has said. He should listen to what I have to say, which will be very anti-German with regard to the Eurofighter 2000. I do not think that that is anti-European; I think that it is defending British interests.
  Mr. Fatchett: The point that I made is valid. The Secretary of State's speech, with its cheap jingoism, was very damaging to this country.
  Mr. Soames: When are we going to hear about defence?
  Mr. Fatchett: The opportunity to hear about defence was at the Tory party conference last week, but the Secretary of State did not utter one word about defence—it was a bid for the leadership of a faction within the Conservative party.
  Why is the Secretary of State's Blackpool speech relevant? When the Minister talks about our armed forces, he should realise why it is relevant. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Wyre said that he had received many letters and he quoted one from an ex-service man. I shall quote it again. He wrote:
  "As a former regular officer with a son about to depart for Bosnia early next year either wearing a UN beret or as part of a NATO formation, I found his"—
  the Secretary of State's—
  "remarks about 'soldiers willing to die for Britain but not for Brussels' particularly offensive."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 109.]
  Those are telling and important words. It was not just that parent, an ex-soldier, who found the Secretary of State's remarks offensive; many people throughout the country and many serving troops found them offensive.
  Of course, the Minister of State tried to defend his boss. Some of us had the advantage of watching the news last week and seeing a clip of the hon. Gentleman's face when his boss was speaking. It was that picture from the
  184
  defence debate that I will take away from the Conservative party conference. I will be fair to the Minister: the look on his face was one of utter disgust. His reaction to his boss's speech was similar—
  Mr. Soames rose—
  Mr. Fatchett: Let me finish this point. His reaction to his boss's speech was similar to the reaction that he would have if a bad meal were placed in front of him. He did not like it. He did not like the smell of it. He did not like the feel of it. He did not like the texture of it. Of course, he is ambitious enough to clap at the right points. What he did not do, but what the Prime Minister did, was to lead the clapping for what was one of the most disgraceful jingoistic speeches that we have had at a party political conference.
  Mr. Soames: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell the House when he intends to give up this childish and idiotic rant. He has been speaking for 15 minutes. He has not said one word about anything to do with defence, or the future of defence, or any of the big issues facing this country, and has done nothing other than indulge in a really pathetic and hopeless attack on my right hon. Friend. Will he please let us—and as he thinks the wider country—know what the Labour party is going to do? Will he share with us his vision about the defence of the realm and how he proposes to bring forward the many reforms which we understand that the Labour party has in mind? Or does he not have any visions? Is that the humbug that he is hiding behind?
  Mr. Fatchett: We seem to have hit a raw nerve. It is quite clearly the case that the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in condemning his boss's speech, but finds it difficult to do so—and I can understand the reasons for that.
  Let me cite one final quotation about the Secretary of State's speech. It was probably the most important of all. I have been unfair to the Secretary of State for Defence. There were people at the conference who applauded the speech and one former Cabinet Minister praised it. Sadly, he has left the Chamber, but he made an intervention earlier. The right hon. Member for Wokingham praised the speech and I shall use his words. He referred to the Secretary of State's speech in the following terms:
  "They were lighthearted remarks, rabble-rousing remarks, which worked on the day."
  That is praise indeed from the real leader of the right of the Tory party. It is interesting that the only praise that could be given to a Defence Secretary's contribution to an annual party conference is that it worked on the day and it was rabble-rousing.
  What is important, what yesterday's debate showed and what the Secretary of State's speech showed is a great difference between the reality of the defence agenda and that speech in Blackpool. In speech after speech yesterday one crucial point was made: for the past 50 years or more, Britain's defence has been best served in partnership with others on the basis of common security.
  It is against that background that Britain and other countries will take decisions about the future of NATO, its role and its membership, about our relations with Russia, and about the future of the Western European Union. Taking decisions in that way is not about

  185
  abandoning Britain's interests. Nobody wants to do that. On the contrary, it is about furthering British interests and security in partnership with others.
  If I could offer some advice to the Secretary of State for Defence, it would be this: his contributions to the debates about the future of Europe and our defence and common security will be much better received if he relates to the important agenda implicit in yesterday's debate—the debates about the common security of Europe, the future of NATO, and the WEU—rather than, as he did at Blackpool, spend time trying to knock down futile, false propositions. That is simply a waste of time.
  There is an important debate; there is an important agenda. What was clear yesterday from everyone who spoke in the debate was that we need to define Britain's defence interests very obviously in co-operation and collaboration with others. The fact that we are having a false debate about any other proposition amazes me and it is a total waste of time. We should not be going in that direction.
  When the Minister pretends, as the Secretary of State tried to do again yesterday, that Labour would somehow give up our sovereignty on defence, it is no more than a cheap party-political pretence which bears no reality to what the party has said and bears no reality to the way in which political decisions are made.
  Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about co-operation—he is finally beginning to get into a little of the substance—would he tell the House which of the candidate countries for NATO he favours in the next stage of NATO enlargement?
  Mr. Fatchett: We have always made it clear—
  Mr. Soames: Which countries?
  Mr. Fatchett: Oh come on. If the Minister would listen to the answer he might be able to make a more sensible contribution. [Interruption.] The crucial decision should not be made with an atlas and a catalogue at this stage, but by looking at the criteria and the way in which that decision will be taken. The criteria concern common security, our ability to contribute to that common security, our ability to preserve and safeguard democracy in the countries which may become NATO members, the ability of those countries to contribute in military terms and their ability to make that contribution economically. Those are all clear criteria which the Labour party has set out. It would be against—
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: I shall in a minute. Again, it will be on the criteria that we shall make a judgment about future NATO membership. I realise that the Minister knows too much and that he does not have to listen—we recognise that from his speech—but if he did listen, he would find out that we have clearly set out our criteria and we are very keen to ensure that the debate is about democracy, economic expansion and human rights in eastern European countries. That debate must be sensitive to the requirements of Russia and the needs of the people of the
  186
  eastern European countries. We have made that argument many times. If the Minister wants to reduce that to a list, it shows that he has very little grasp of his office.
  Mr. Hardy: Since the Minister is interested in the list of countries, would my hon. Friend care to put to him the following question? Does the Minister fully endorse the view of Her Majesty's Government in welcoming into associate membership and involvement in the WEU a whole list of east European countries which sought that relationship to achieve security guarantees that neither this country nor any other European country can properly fulfil at the present time?
  Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raises a point with which I am sure the Minister will deal in his reply. My hon. Friend is also right about the article V guarantees. Indeed, we have made that point clearly in the criteria that we have set out.
  In the discussion about co-operation and national interest, there is one area in which the Secretary of State could speak on behalf of the British people and British interests more clearly and define his contribution in that direction. I speak of the importance of the defence industries and those who work in them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spent a good deal of time on this issue yesterday and I shall certainly not delay the House by repeating those points. The key elements, however, which we all recognise and understand, are that the industries are important in their technology, skills and in the contribution that they make to Britain's industrial base.
  We want to know from the Minister whether it is true that the Secretary of State prefers an option to buy off the shelf. If that is true, it means that, almost invariably, we will buy American to the cost of British industry. Is there no strategic view coming from the Ministry of the British defence industrial base interest? Will the Minister give us some indication tonight of whether there will be at some point a clear statement that the off-the-shelf approach is not the Government's approach and that they recognise their responsibility towards the defence industries?
  We also know that there will be more European collaboration in procurement. How will we secure the UK interest in that? How will we manage those projects? Again, there have been no comments from Ministers and no clear policy statements, yet key British interests are involved.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement—he is new to his job and I congratulate him on his appointment—cannot have been helped by the Secretary of State's speech last week. In considering European collaboration projects, how will British industrial interest be secured against a background of other European countries feeling that they have been subjected to personal criticism by the Secretary of State for Defence? How are we to defend British jobs, companies, technology and skills? Those are the key issues to which the Minister must relate, yet there is no strategy on it at all. Yesterday, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces scoffed at Labour's idea for seeking ways in which we could diversify from military into civilian production. Is not it a shame that on yet another issue of such importance—Britain's industrial base—the Government have no ideas?
  The notion that everything can be left to the marketplace is comfortable to state but it is irrelevant to the needs of the British people. We need a strategy. No

  187
  one in the Labour party is saying that the conversion process will be easy, but, if we do not try to make that move and to preserve the skills, the technology and the scientific base, we shall lose important national assets that should not be wasted.
  Our stance on diversification is ringing a chord not only with the companies involved but with the people who work in the industry. Again, we have the right agenda. The Minister said yesterday that there was a need to be forward looking, but he has not dealt with the important issue of Britain's industrial base.
  The Minister of State spoke yesterday of the need to manage the Ministry of Defence's resources better. In his speech last week, the Secretary of State said that it was his task to convert waste into weapons. There is certainly a great deal of waste in the MOD which could be converted. A great deal of taxpayers' money could be saved by better management. Let us consider the waste permitted by the Government over the past few months.
  The privatisation of the MOD housing scheme, which I believe was the brainchild of the Minister of State, cost the taxpayer £5 million in consultancy fees alone. That was money wasted. Some £6.7 million was spent on consultants at Devonport and Rosyth, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, there is still uncertainty at the bases and no decision has yet been taken about them. I hope that such matters will be cleared up in tonight's winding-up speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields yesterday quoted the National Audit Office report which shows that all major projects are delayed and overspent. The Government need to take seriously the notion of turning waste into weapons. They need to save on the waste which is costing taxpayers so much and which is a further indictment of the Government's record.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields also mentioned yesterday that there was much criticism of our European partners in virtually all the speeches at last week's Conservative party conference. However, when there is an opportunity legitimately to criticise our European partners the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are quiet. The nation recognises their silence on and tacit support for the French nuclear tests. I put it on record again that we condemn those tests. Our position is absolutely clear, and we speak for the people of this country and for the people of Europe and elsewhere.
  In his winding-up speech yesterday, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces let slip a comment that worried one or two of his colleagues. He said:
  "Not only have we not gone too far but there have been and will be further cuts and attempts to keep down the cost of the way in which we do our business."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]
  It seemed to my colleagues and me, and to some Tory Members, that the Minister was flagging up more defence cuts. It is no wonder that concern had been expressed in some earlier interventions. The Minister must tell us tonight whether what we suspect is true.
  The reason why I raise the issue now is that whenever we argue for a defence review—one that will take account of the substantially changing world to which the Minister referred and of Britain's commitments in Europe and to the United Nations, and one which will examine overstretch in our forces—the Government criticise us and say that such a review would merely cause uncertainty. Once again, that shows the Government's arrogance. They
  188
  believe, although the British public certainly do not, that they have got it right every time. The reality is that they are not prepared to face the consequences of a new world and new decisions, which are what make the prospect of a defence review so exciting.
  The Government are introducing cuts by stealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke yesterday about the number of armed forces personnel. The defence estimates show that in the past decade alone, at 1993–94 prices, there was a 30 per cent. cut in defence spending. That may have been necessary—we are not arguing about that—but the cuts were made by a Government who have not had the courage to face their own Back Benchers or the armed forces and talk logically about Britain's defence needs and foreign policy requirements. In this, as in so many other spheres, Labour would promise an opportunity to consider the changing world to which the Minister referred, an opportunity to match Britain's role in the world with Britain's defence requirements, an opportunity for us to have a defence base driven by foreign policy requirements and a real assessment of Britain's needs in the world. That is what is exciting about a defence review.
  Despite the cheap patriotism that Ministers like to use, the fact is that, because the Labour party is thinking about these issues and knows the way forward for Britain's defence and foreign policy, the people of this country trust us. That is why we shall form the next Government and take, the crucial decisions about Britain's future defence needs.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I begin by paying tribute to the previous Secretary of State for Defence, who has now moved to the Foreign Office, on his three difficult years in that post. He handled the difficulties extremely well and fought the armed forces' corner. In his absence, I welcome the new Secretary of State to his first defence estimates debate.
  In my three and a half years as a Member of Parliament, I think that I have attended all our defence debates. As I said, it has been an enormously difficult period. I hope that there will be no further turbulence but instead more certainty and, dare I say, more stability. We need a period of positive progress and I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement of the joint rapid deployment force and the Tomahawk and other equipment procurement.
  In looking forward to stability, we should be honest about the unhappiness of the past three to four years, which was characterised by the plethora of volunteers for redundancy, as mentioned yesterday by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). We should now encourage a reinstatement of the previous high morale in our forces and fulfil our commitments to them. The Prime Minister promised last year that there would be no further cuts in the armed forces or in defence spending, and that promise was also made by the previous Secretary of State. I would welcome further reassurance tonight that there will be no further cuts in funding other than those already proposed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Real-terms reductions have been planned and I accept them but now is the time to reiterate that there will be no further cuts.

  189
  I believe that the cuts went too far. For example, I do not think that there are enough infantry battalions in the Army. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State agreed and reprieved two battalions a year ago. I still believe that there are not enough but I trust that I shall be proved wrong. Similarly, I am not happy about decisions such as that to scrap the royal yacht but I do not think that it materially affects the ability of the armed forces to fight a war.
  The results of the uncertainty and unhappiness of the past three to four years remain, which is why I stress that we must restore the high standards of which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has spoken. For instance, yesterday the Secretary of State mentioned recruiting. Quotas for recruiting are now adequate, but unfortunately it is difficult to get recruits to come forward. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces acknowledged yesterday that the number of recruits for the infantry, the artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps is inadequate, and it is time that we stressed that fact and encouraged further recruitment by all means including, if necessary, pay rises above the rate of inflation.
  Last week, there were various articles in the press that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to dismiss later, suggesting that Gurkhas are to take over the role of British troops. I mean no criticism of Gurkhas, who are excellent soldiers in their own way, and have a history of loyalty and service to the British Crown, when I say that it is not a happy state of affairs to have non-British soldiers, indeed mercenaries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not denigrate the Gurkhas in any way when I say that they are troops paid to fight for us. As I have already said, they are excellent troops. I pay tribute to them, but they are not as flexible as British troops—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.
  Mr. Robathan: The idea that Gurkhas can do everything that British troops can do has been acknowledged for many years as unlikely. For instance, Gurkhas are not fighting—or rather, not on the streets—in Northern Ireland, because it is not deemed sensible to place them there. They are not as flexible and they cannot replace British troops. I am sure that the Minister will address that problem, and I hope that he will be able to reassure me.
  One cause of uncertainty hanging over the United Kingdom's armed forces is the Bett report, which was mentioned yesterday.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Before my hon. Friend deals with the Bett report will he tell me whether he, unlike the Opposition Members who were laughing at him, has direct experience of military activity and of leading troops of different kinds? We know that they have none.
  Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The generalisation made in that intervention is insulting to the House—
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: And quite untrue.
  Mr. Cook: And, as my colleague says, it is totally untrue. I ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to withdraw the implication of his statement.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. There was nothing out of order in what the hon. Member for Tayside, North said.
  Mr. Robathan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have served in the armed forces as, I know, have many other hon. Gentlemen. Indeed, I have served with the Gurkhas within the past five years, and they are excellent troops—
  Mr. Mackinlay: In their own way.
  Mr. Robathan: They are super troops and I love them dearly. However, they are not British-speaking troops, as is painfully obvious. I do not know why the Opposition should find it difficult to accept that. They should look up the word "mercenary" in the English dictionary and discover what it means. The Gurkhas are paid to serve the British Crown, just as the excellent Swiss troops still guard the Pope.
  One cause of uncertainty that hangs over the United Kingdom armed forces is the Bett report. It has been mentioned before, and I do not intend to speak in great depth about it. However, I emphasise the fact that the armed forces are different. They are not Tesco, British Telecom or any other business; there can be no profit.
  We can encourage efficiency—which I am sure hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would wish to see—but the ultimate test is in war. So far as I know, there are few complaints about the armed forces not being efficient. Certainly they could be more efficient, but they are well respected. I quoted the Minister of State's grandfather to him last February, so I shall not do so again, but those words should be marked well.
  Sir Michael Bett's report, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said so much, considered the armed forces, especially the Army, in peacetime. That is not appropriate, because the armed forces exist for war. The hierarchical rank structure might seem odd in British Telecom, but it does not seem odd in a battle. I fear that the Bett report may strike at the very heart of the ethos, the fraternity, the spirit and the comradeship in the armed forces. It is not necessarily appropriate for a civilian business man to try to organise an army. Certainly BT is not more respected than the British armed forces. So I trust that Ministers will consider the consequences of the Bett report carefully before introducing its recommendations.
  Many people wish to force the armed forces to be like the rest of society, and to allow homosexuals to be service personnel. That is a rather contentious subject, upon which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has commented in the past. My own view is that such a change would turn common sense on its head in a desire to be politically correct. Are we to sacrifice the efficient defence of the United Kingdom for the sake of political correctness? Political correctness may not be peddled on the Government side of the House, but it is peddled by the Opposition.
  Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend may care to consider something before he makes his point. I shall seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief. My hon. Friend should

  191
  consider how much it costs the Ministry of Defence to hound out perfectly good decent soldiers, not for reasons of misconduct during their military service but for being rather than for doing. My hon. Friend should be careful.
  Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend has his own particular point to make, and I look forward to hearing it later. I served in the Army for 15 years and met some people whom I suspected were latently homosexual. There were also one or two sad cases, which I greatly regretted, involving courts martial—for actions, not for "being", as my hon. Friend describes it.
  It may surprise some people to know that most soldiers were extremely tolerant. They were not—to use a rather contrived modern term—homophobic. Indeed, they were quite happy serving with whoever, and they certainly regretted the courts martial, as I did. But they did not want to share a shower or a lavatory, a trench or a bed, with somebody who might be interested in them. Women have separate facilities, and it is not so unreasonable to say that men, too, should have their privacy respected in different facilities.
  There are quite enough difficulties with women when sex rears its ugly head, as has been well reported in the press, and I do not think that one needs to exacerbate the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go and have a cold shower."] I notice one or two Members laughing. Will they tell us whether it is official Labour party policy to allow homosexuality? I believe that the hon. Member for South Shields said that it was not. Or did he say that it was? I cannot quite remember.
  It would not improve the armed forces to allow homosexuality. I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the other Ministers to defy the judges and political correctness, even if the sensibilities of a few people are offended.
  The major operation of the moment is taking place in Bosnia. God willing, we may now have a lasting peace there, in which case I congratulate all involved, including President Clinton and the British Government. However, fighting continues in north-west Bosnia, and it is a peculiar state of affairs, about which many hon. Members are slightly unhappy, when United Kingdom soldiers and aircraft support, or by their actions seem to support, the territorial ambitions of Croatia. Not many hon. Members would say that President Tudjman leads a democratic government.
  My view is that all three sides in Bosnia are culpable, and all three have committed atrocities, but for now I shall concentrate on Croatia and say that 18 months ago its forces were bombarding Mostar and killing Bosnian Muslim Government troops, and civilians. Now the regular Croatian army is fighting in Bosnia—a campaign aided, albeit perhaps unwittingly, by NATO and RAF soldiers and aircraft. That is not a conflict that we understand, and it is not a conflict of which we should be part.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman certainly does not understand it.
  Mr. Robathan: I suspect that I understand it rather better than the hon. Gentleman who made that rather foolish intervention.
  About two weeks ago, while I was abroad, I heard on the BBC World Service that the United Nations had referred to a Bosnian Government action as "treacherous".
  192
  I think that I am right in saying that. Should we really risk the lives of our service men in such an action? I think not, and I acknowledge that I was wrong to applaud the decision to send troops.
  Our other major operation is in Northern Ireland. Last week, an old flax mill in west Belfast that was my home for five months was knocked down. I am delighted that the battalion based there has been withdrawn and I hope that troop numbers continue to be reduced, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. Having soldiers who are not gainfully employed hanging around in cramped barracks is likely to cause difficulties rather than assist in the peaceful maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland. We must keep our internal security training, but the sooner the Northern Ireland garrison is returned to pre-1969 levels, the better. Battalions can always return quickly if they are properly trained.
  I congratulate the Government on their Northern Ireland policy and on reducing force levels, especially since there seems to be a great deal of opposition from some people in Northern Ireland who, I suggest, are wrong in the matter. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have jobs which anybody would be proud of, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was an honour to open yesterday's debate. I look forward to his being Secretary of State for Defence for the foreseeable future, and I know that while he is there, he will defend the best interests of our armed forces to ensure that they remain the envy of the world.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: With others, I am intending to vote against the White Paper tonight and I want to give the electors of Chesterfield, the House and my colleagues the reasons for that. I am in fundamental disagreement with the defence and foreign policies of the Government, and I would like to devote my comments to that.
  I was in the House during the big arms programme of 1951, and I heard Aneurin Bevan—who resigned from the Government on that occasion and was no supporter of the Soviet system—say that he did not believe that the Soviet Union ever intended to invade western Europe. I agree with that. I do not believe that the Soviet Union had either the will or the capacity to invade western Germany, move into France, take over Italy and then come to London. But enormous sums of money were spent on building up resistance to the Soviet Union. The real reason for that was very simple; if we pretended that we were about to be invaded by the Soviet Union, anyone who criticised the Government could be described as an agent of the KGB or of the Kremlin. It was a political campaign.
  At any rate, NATO was built up to deal with that matter, and that included the build-up of nuclear weapons to which I shall refer in a minute. Looking at the difficulties the Russian army had in Chechnya, I wonder whether the expenditure undertaken by NATO was at all appropriate. I hear that Willy Claes, the Secretary-General of NATO—he may be, for all I know, about to be replaced for other reasons—has announced that now that communism is over, Islam is the great enemy of the west.
  There is a picture of the crusades in St. Stephen's Hall, and we must be careful that we do not fall into the habit of believing that we now need all these weapons to protect ourselves from Islam. A holy war or, "jihad", would be

  193
  very dangerous, although I understand that many Governments find it necessary to have a foreign enemy. Nor do I believe that the Bosnian Serbs justify our defence budget.
  My second point in that context is that we cannot afford the present level of weapons. I have had the national defence budget divided by the population to help me to understand the matter, and it appears that every family of four is spending £40 a week on weapons. The Government should knock on any door and ask whether the occupants feel more threatened by an attack from the Bosnian Serbs or by the possibility that they might fall ill without medical treatment being available. The veterans who fought on D-day and who go to hospital now are told, "We are afraid that it is not worth treating you, Sergeant Bloggs. You are 75 and it is not worth giving you a new hip." That is where the threat to security comes from.
  We should look at Japan and Germany, countries which we have not allowed to re-arm. Why have they done so well? Why are they selling us cameras and cars when we are supplying military equipment through the arms trade to other countries? While I cannot anticipate what the next Government will do, I do not believe that any incoming Government, faced with pressure to improve services, will be able to say that the defence budget is sacrosanct. It cannot be sacrosanct. We are about to send 15,000 people to Yugoslavia as part of a peacekeeping force. If we can house 15,000 British soldiers in Yugoslavia, why can we not house the people who live in cardboard boxes in London? Our priorities will have to be considered in that context.
  My third point is—from the point of view of public deception—the most important of all. We have not had for many years—since atomic bombs could be dropped by Vulcan bombers—an independent British nuclear deterrent. I speak with some authority, as I was the Minister in charge of Aldermaston and I know what I am talking about. When the Americans supplied us with nuclear weapons, we allowed them to control our security services and they allowed us to pretend that we had an independent deterrent.
  We do not have such a deterrent, and that is what Zircon was all about. We could not fire our so-called "independent deterrent" without the Americans switching on their satellite system. It has been a miracle of misrepresentation, that 10 general elections have been fought on the question of whether we should retain that which we have never had. I am disappointed that the Labour party has suddenly come around to accepting the need for a weapon with nine times the killing power of Polaris while denouncing the French for testing their weapons. I strongly doubt whether the computer testing of our weapons will give the reliability that is alleged. On those grounds, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government tonight. I think that an awful lot of people will share my view, although I do not know how many will join me.
  I come now to the Government's foreign policy, which is more important, because all defence policy has to be related to the Government's foreign policy objectives. What has happened—I thought that someone must mention this—is that NATO is replacing the UN. We had
  194
  a great celebration of the UN in the summer, and I remember the excitement I felt as a young pilot coming back from the war when I read, in the charter of the UN:
  "We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".
  I believed in that, but I now find that NATO has taken over. The basic principle of the UN was the power of unanimity, but the Russians have now been pushed to one side as the Americans, following the end of the cold war, have taken control of the Security Council.
  In the case of Iraq, a so-called "alliance" or coalition of partners was supposed to have been involved in the operation, but of course it was American dominated. The subject of sanctions has been raised, and 500,000 children under five have died in Iraq because of sanctions in the past five years, according to figures produced by international aid agencies. Twice as many children under five have died in Iraq as died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I cannot support such a policy, and I do not support it.
  Reference has been made to Bosnia, and I tried—together with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—to get the House recalled to discuss the matter. We could not get the House recalled, although the decision to participate in the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs was taken in direct contravention of what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said during the summer, which was, "We do not intend to get involved in the war."
  I wish to spend a moment on the matter, because there is a lot of background detail. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Turks for many centuries, and was then a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. During the war, the Croats had the fascist Ustashi regime, which is now being recognised again by the Croatian Government. The German Government broke up Yugoslavia, and Herr Genscher—the former German foreign minister—said that the greatest achievement in that period of the German foreign office was to break up Yugoslavia. Why? Because the new Germany wants to extend its power in the Balkans.
  As Croatia and Bosnia were allowed to leave Yugoslavia, an argument could be made—although I am not in favour of any such disintegration—for the Bosnian Serbs to be allowed to leave. Why should Bosnia be allowed to leave, but not the Bosnian Serbs? We have gone in to provide humanitarian aid, and I support that. I have said time and again in the House, and I shall say it again, that all that we can do in a civil war is provide an embargo of weapons, humanitarian aid and a peace table. It is a civil war in Bosnia, and we must not pretend that the war is an act of international aggression. Instead of providing an embargo, aid and a peace table, we have taken part in the most murderous assault by NATO, with which the Minister is proud to associate himself. That assault brought the Bosnian Serbs to the peace table. But if the Bosnian Government are not satisfied, they may say that unless NATO continues the bombing, they will not come to the table. NATO has become an instrument of the Bosnian Government.
  I believe that the story will be different in the end. I think that Croatia will take over Bosnia, and that the Bosnian Serbs will probably move in with Serbia. We are seeing a partition of Yugoslavia between Croatia and Serbia, and the pretence that we are there to defend Bosnia's Muslim multi-cultural Government is quite untrue.

  195
  I shall give one or two other reasons why I shall vote against the Government, although I do not want to take up too much time. The arms trade is the most criminal trade in the world. It is worse than terrorism because it is sponsored by Governments. It is worse than AIDS because it is sponsored by Governments. As the House knows, Britain has supplied weapons, as has America to a greater extent, to both sides in most conflicts, just as at the time of the crusades the European arms manufacturers supplied weapons to Saladin and Richard I. That came out at a recent seminar in Cairo.
  The arms trade uses conflict to test weapons. Then when the weapons are used, they send in peacekeepers and say, "Have a ceasefire." The ceasefire allows arms manufacturers to find out which weapons worked best. That is what happened in the Falklands war. The Exocet proved to be so successful that it is now widely sold.
  If we look at the world seriously—I try to do so—we find that the way in which international finance causes countries to cut their public services to satisfy the demands of international financiers creates poverty. Poverty is one of the greatest causes of war, as is unemployment. There were 6 million unemployed in Germany before the last world war. That brought Hitler to power. People who are unemployed are frightened and look for a strong leader. A strong leader, or would-be strong leader, always finds foreign enemies. Hitler found the Jews. The Secretary of State found all foreigners. Anyone who has read "Mein Kampf'—as I did in my teens—and the life of Mussolini could not mistake the roots of the ideas that came out of the Conservative conference. If we do not deal with the problem of world poverty, we should not be surprised if it leads to conflict. If it leads to conflict, that means more weapons. If it means more weapons, it means less money for development. So the policy is wholly misplaced.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be called to speak. He will talk about the cancellation of third world debt, which I support. Do not tell me that it is not possible to diversify from weapons production. At the end of the war, within 18 months we moved 4 million or 6 million people from producing weapons into producing houses. I remember when the Beaufighters stopped coming out of the factory in Bristol. About eight weeks later prefabricated houses started coming out of the factory. Do not tell me that we cannot diversify. Of course we can, if we plan so to do.
  We should also seek to reduce our defence expenditure. I cannot see any reason why there are British troops in Germany. I hope that the peace process will result in the withdrawal of all British troops from Ireland. The purpose of the peace process must surely be that.
  I have put my arguments without making any reference to the Ministers who have spoken because I do not believe that our debates are improved by turning to the level of abuse that we have seen. I said that yesterday in my tribute to Lord Home and I say it again. The issues that face Britain are formidable. It is not possible to have law and order without social justice. It is not possible to have world peace without international justice. It is not possible to have either while we devote so much money to the weapons of war and neglect the real threat to people's security, which is that they do not have a home, a job, education or health or they do not have dignity when they are old.
  196
  Throughout the world, the gap between rich and poor is widening. There are 1,300,000,000 people in the world without a clean water supply. Half a million women die every year in childbirth for lack of proper resources and 35,000 babies die every day from poverty-related diseases. When will the country and the Parliament face those questions? If we go on thinking that a few more weapons or a few more soldiers will solve the problems, we will make worse the very problems that we should besolving.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The House knows of my interests, and particularly my Royal Air Force interests. That is one reason why I am wearing my tie today. I notice that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is wearing his tie. I welcome that because, as another member of the Volunteer Reserve, I too wear my tie with pride.
  I assure the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that he is not the only Member in the House who remembers 1951. Some of us remember it vividly. There was another war going on at the time, called the Korean war. The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked it when he talked about the need in 1951 to improve the capability of our armed forces. He was right to say that, when the war ended, we thought that war was over. We all rejoiced, and the Americans went home. The United States military left the United Kingdom and left the bases. It was not until 1948 and the problems in Berlin referred to as the Berlin airlift that the United States returned to the United Kingdom.
  In 1951, we had to spend more money because the Royal Air Force, among other services, had to train new people to take on the tasks. I remember vividly how the training regime in the RAF had to be stepped up again to train new pilots and air crew, because we thought that the Chinese intervention in Korea would lead to a much greater war. That was the reason for the planning at that time.
  The House will note that I do not make the criticism that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield makes of the Labour Government. The truth was that we faced an extremely tortuous and difficult situation. No one really knew what was going to happen in Korea with any certainty. The fact that the Chinese could have become much more involved was one reason why we had to have adequate air crew available to meet the envisaged possible needs. The same was true for the rest of the services.
  Of course, we all know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is the real voice of Labour. It is not the new Labour that we keep hearing about. His views on nuclear weapons are of long standing. He has never changed them. That is to his great credit. When one cares deeply about something, one should stand by it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does. I do not doubt the integrity of his position—I just disagree with it. That is an entirely different matter.
  When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield touched on the break-up of Yugoslavia, I found myself agreeing with him. It was Germany's precipitous recognition of Croatia that brought about the break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany took that decision without consulting its European allies.

  197
  Is it anti-European to make that comment? Am I being nasty? Am I being hideous? Of course not. If one is talking among friends, one must tell the truth as one understands it. I said in an intervention earlier that I would be making some comments about Germany. I did not intend making a comment about Germany in relation to Croatia, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield gave me that opportunity. He and I are in agreement.
  I am also in agreement with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—this may get those on my Front Bench worried—that regimes and politicians under stress at home will try to find foreign enemies. I am concerned about the unstable situation in the former Soviet Union and parts of the Islamic world, where there is undoubtedly a proliferation of weapons. In the former Soviet Union in particular, there is a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and some nuclear capability will exist in Islamic countries in the foreseeable future. So it is wise—I put it no higher than that—to retain a capable deterrent.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield, like myself, spent quite some time flying aircraft for the Royal Air Force. He will recollect that, if we had had sufficient Spitfires and Hurricanes available, we might have been capable of deterring Hitler in 1938. They were the deterrent capability at that time. The Germans believed that their Luftwaffe was invincible. They believed that it could take them anywhere they wanted to go. If we had had television and all the pundits that we have today, we would never have fought the battle of Britain, because they would have told us that we could not possibly have won.
  Mr. Benn: Galtieri attacked a nuclear power: Britain. Saddam Hussein attacked three nuclear powers: America, Britain and France. Where was the deterrent then?
  Mr. Walker: They never attempted to use a nuclear capability against nuclear powers. I drew attention to Spitfires and Hurricanes because, had we had a deterrent capability in the south Atlantic—had we had the aircraft carrier squadron that Dennis Healey withdrew—we would probably have had a deterrent capability. [Interruption.] I say that as a passing reference. Dennis Healey withdrew the aircraft carrier squadron from the south Atlantic. It was part of the east of Suez policy at that time. Some of us remember what actually happened because we were there. Those who were involved cannot be told the fairy tales that we sometimes hear today.
  Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Walker: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard.
  Mr. Hardy: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall the fact that the iron lady removed HMS Endurance just before the Argentine invasion of the Falkland islands, and was warned by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the consequence of that withdrawal? Is that not more apposite than a reference to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Healey?
  Mr. Walker: It was an unhelpful act, which contributed to that. But if we could have deployed an aircraft carrier squadron, carrying aircraft that a proper
  198
  aircraft carrier would carry with an over-the-horizon radar capability, Galtieri would undoubtedly not have taken the chance. I simply draw attention to that point.
  May I return to the matter of foreign enemies? Given the unstable regimes and conditions in countries such as the former Soviet Union and Islam, it is wise for us to retain a nuclear capability and a conventional deterrent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made some scathing comments about the Bett report. I agree with Ministers to a degree. While aspects of the Bett report may be helpful, many other aspects want throwing out, as they have nothing to do with a military capability, leadership, or what is required under active service conditions.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned the reserve forces, and I endorse what he said. We must now look seriously at beefing up our reserves. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is sitting behind me, because I am about to say something which he and I have been trying to get the Government to agree to for years: the Royal Air Force Reserve should have a flying capability. An opportunity could arise if we are to deploy the rapid reaction force. A reserve squadron could and should have done that job.
  I welcome the ceasefire agreement, such as it is, reached in Bosnia. Like everyone in the House, I pay credit to the professionalism, quality and courage of our Army, Navy and Air Force. The House will not be surprised that I wish to draw attention in particular to the Royal Air Force and its pivotal role in Bosnia, particularly in reaching the current agreement. Its contribution, which was made in harmony with the United States and our other NATO partners, was pivotal in producing those results. The operational task of the Jaguars and Harriers in delivering laser-guided bombs is an example of professional flying and great capability. The tankers and early warning aircraft, which also played a role, are often undervalued, but very necessary in combat conditions.
  I also draw attention to the critical and vital part in the military jigsaw played by the transport fleet, which rarely gets credit for what it does. I am always amused when people talk to me about buying foreign aircraft. What short memories they have. How could we ever have won the war without the Dakota—the DC3, for those who do not know what it is? We should not forget the remarkable and often dangerous sorties carried out by the Chinook helicopter crews, particularly those attached to 24 Air Mobile Force.
  Last but not least—sadly, it is often overlooked—we must recognise the vital top-cover role of the Tornado F3s. Other NATO air forces were unable to take on that task, as they could not provide top cover at night. The role that the RAF's F3 crews and aircraft carried out with such distinction should be acknowledged.
  We should also remember the contribution of the ground crews and staff of Logistics Command. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have often wondered what "Front Line First" is. It is uncomfortable to be in the front line if one does not have the ammunition required to carry out one's task, so the work of Logistics Command was very important. Its staff often worked long hours, with frequent absences from their home base. I have received letters, as have other hon. Members, about the concerns of their wives. I simply say that they are right to be concerned and to contact their Members of Parliament.

  199
  On the replacement aircraft and replacement programme, I want first to look at maritime patrol aircraft. The Nimrod has been, and still is, a super aircraft in that role. It has done a remarkable job, and is one of the most popular aircraft in the Royal Air Force. Air crew love the Nimrod. I make a plea this afternoon for a thoughtful and considered debate to evaluate and properly assess the respective types under consideration to replace the Nimrod. I do not want next year's decision to be pre-empted.
  I make that plea because I have no wish to see a repeat of the public and high-profile campaigns that took place during the Hercules replacement programme. Those did nothing for the candidates and little to make the work force affected any happier, particularly as many of the scare stories circulating at that time have been found to be overstated. They caused concern and made many people in the industry feel insecure. It does not help to tell people that their jobs are at risk because of something that may happen in five or 10 years' time. I hope that we shall have an in-depth debate, but not lots of scare stories.
  The Eurofighter 2000 is critical to the future requirements of the Royal Air Force. I deplore German attempts to delay the programme and obtain what I regard as an unfair share of the construction work. The Germans have deliberately tried to delay the programme because their entry-into-service date differs from that of the Royal Air Force. Moreover, they have reduced the number of aircraft which they originally committed themselves to purchasing. The only country that has kept to its original commitment is the United Kingdom. As we are buying the lion's share of the aircraft, it is only right and proper that British factories should have the lion's share of the work.
  I find some of the comments made by German politicians particularly nauseating. Am I allowed to say that, Madam Deputy Speaker? Am I being anti-European or anti our allies? It is the job of German politicians to suit their own needs and ends, but, as a British politician, it is right that I should criticise them, especially as Britain is honouring its commitments on the Eurofighter 2000. If the United Kingdom is to have a design and construction capability in the future, the Eurofighter 2000 programme is vital. Therefore, we are honouring our commitment; the Germans are not—to name a name, Volker Rühe.
  In an earlier intervention, I asked Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen if they recalled any European politicians making comments that I might judge to be anti-European. I repeat the name: Volker Rühe. He was saying what he judged would appeal to the German electorate and, more importantly, to his party's supporters. It was all right for him to do that; perfectly in order. After all, he is a good European. I am not a good European.
  Let me remind the House that some of us remember what being good Europeans meant. As many of us remember it on the Government side as on the Opposition side. Loyalty, chivalry and the other qualities that go with being in the military do not belong to any particular individual or party. Britain has those qualities in abundance across all sections of society. We were good Europeans twice this century.
  I recently went to a conference with politicians from Europe and other parts of the world. The Speaker of the Belgian Parliament was making comments about the British not being very good Europeans. I said, "Excuse me, you are from Belgium, that wee country between
  200
  Germany and France. Have you ever visited the war graves? If you do, you will find Macdonalds, McGregors, Campbells and Frasers and, if you look carefully, you will find a few Walkers as well. You say we are not good Europeans. We gave you your freedom with our blood. That is the kind of good Europeans we are."
  The Eurofighter 2000 is important to the United Kingdom. I do not have to remind the House that the Belgians would not give us the ammunition we required during the Gulf war. People talk about what is required to be a good European. I believe that the blood of my relatives is sufficient evidence of what being a good European is.
  I come now to a subject about which I care deeply—this will be no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister—the cadet forces. Again I have to declare an interest, because I am the honorary president of the Air Cadet Gliding Organisation, which is a voluntary organisation.
  During defence costs studies, the volunteer officers, staff and parents of the air cadets were exposed to many months of uncertainties. A 50 per cent. cut in the budget was originally proposed. I thank my right hon. and hon Friends on the Front Bench, and their predecessors, for their support for the cadet forces and for recognising their responsibilities in that respect. Without their support, the uncertainty would not have been removed.
  We were relieved when we heard what we thought were the decisions of the defence costs study, only to find that there is something called "Defence in the Public Eye" rumbling around the corridors of Whitehall. I understand that proposals—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note this—that involve air and other cadets being required to raise more funding for themselves are being considered. In real terms, that means that air cadets would have to raise more than the £3 million that they already raise each year by their own efforts.
  The adults who give up their time to run the cadets do so largely because they have specific knowledge and skills to impart. In my experience, they do not have specific knowledge or skills in fund-raising. That is not what they are there for. They would find themselves in competition with other good causes, many of which are experiencing difficulty in raising funds.
  The proposal is wrong-headed and unwise: our cadet forces exist because the volunteer adults, officers and instructors are prepared to give of their time to do the tasks they have accepted. If we ask them to become fund raisers as well, I judge that we will lose many of our adults, which we can ill afford. I hope that Ministers will engage their minds as they did during the latter part of "Front Line First", when they came up with some helpful answers, for which I thank them.
  I have again to declare an interest in considering the rationalisation of the defence estate. The Air Cadet Gliding Organisation has 28 units scattered throughout the country with both powered and conventional gliders. They require airfields from which to operate. With the reduction of Royal Air Force airfields, and with some airfields being transferred to the Army and other services, it is important that we have some meaningful arrangement about how volunteer units are going to be deployed.
  I am concerned about northern England, where—it may interest some hon. Members from northern England that I commanded a volunteer unit at Dishforth many years ago—the volunteer unit at Catterick may have difficulties.

  201
  Can the Minister give me an assurance that consideration will be given to the needs of air cadets, and especially the volunteer gliding schools, so that the voice of the air cadets will be heard during the rationalisation? Once the airfields have gone, it will be too late to try to find somewhere else; that is what happened to the unit at Dishforth, which closed 21 years ago and has not reopened. That is a plea from the heart.
  The volunteer gliding schools are close to my heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) told the House that he had given 18 years of service; I have given close on 40 years of volunteer service. In my time as a pilot and instructor, one of the things that gave me the greatest joy was seeing 16 or 17-year-olds going off on their first solo flights. It gave them an uplift that one has to see to understand. It is part of character development. It is a real challenge; if they make a mistake they could easily kill themselves. Such youngsters are never likely to steal a car for kicks, because they have had the thrills, excitement and challenges. That is what sending them solo achieves. That is why airfields are critical at a time when we hear so often of the troubles of young people.
  The House knows also of my interest in the scouts. I believe that the scouts and cadet forces contribute massively to the well-being of our young people, and we must recognise that.
  I hope that Opposition Members will not feel that I am making my plea this evening because the cadet forces are military organisations; it is the good that the youngsters do for the community afterwards that pays back the nation. More important, it is easier to keep good kids good than to make bad kids good, and much less expensive. That is why I believe that the air, Army and sea cadets, supported as they are by the Ministry of Defence, are a massive contribution to the well-being of our people.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has decided on a limit of 10 minutes for speeches between the hours of 7 and 9.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I am grateful to be chosen to speak while there are still shop stewards from the naval building yards of Yarrow, Barrow and Vosper here to listen to the debate. I want specifically to raise with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement the procurement of the type 23 frigates, the batch 2 Trafalgar submarines and the landing platform docks. I want to raise with him not simply the question whether those orders should be placed, but the timing of the orders.
  I accept, as all of us do, that, in the past, much defence procurement was far too cosy. I believe, however, that it has now become, in many ways, far too rigorous, and that the Ministry of Defence is not taking into account the full enormity of its influence on the suppliers as, effectively, a monopoly purchaser when there are far fewer orders, both in this country and for export purposes.
  The Ministry needs to recognise more than it does at the moment that the shipyards need a flow of work to ensure that they retain the vital skills that will enable them
  202
  not only to meet Ministry requirements at present and in the immediate future, but to tender for export contracts now and in the future. It is not reasonable for the Ministry of Defence to postpone the placing of orders and to expect privately owned yards to retain full work forces on the understanding that an order might arrive at some time in the future.
  There has, of course, to be competition for tenders, but if the tenders are not being awarded timeously, it is not reasonable to expect the employers to retain substantial work forces when there is no work for those people to undertake.
  The Ministry must enter a much better partnership with the private sector shipyards to ensure that capacity is retained. If capacity is lost, there is no guarantee that we shall be able to turn to the French, to the Germans, to the Italians or to the Spanish in future and ask them to build ships to our requirements or to our time scale. If the capacity is lost, it will never return. The orders must be placed to ensure that there is a work flow, rather than placed simply to suit the cash flow of the Ministry.
  The Ministry of Defence and the Government have been correct to focus on the idea of national champions when going for export orders, and I very much welcome that. I hope, however, that, given that there is a recognition that so much is based on personal contact, especially in the third world and in the middle east, the Government will take into account the possibility—they may wish to concede no more than this—that there may be a change of Government.
  I hope that the Government will ensure that there are Opposition Members who are well aware of the nature of the contracts and who have had the opportunity, in a bipartisan way with the Government, to form links with possible suppliers to ensure that the links are not broken in a way likely to be detrimental to British industry and to the possibility of winning foreign orders, if there is a change of Government.
  I say that in an entirely non-partisan way, and I hope that the Government will accept the suggestion in that spirit. The proposal was put to me not by an Opposition Member, but by the shop stewards when we met them this morning. Obviously, many of them support us politically, but they recognise that a change of Government might result in loss of opportunity if there was disruption in the negotiation of contracts.
  I hope that the Government recognise that export orders can best be gained on the backs of orders being placed by them. The credibility of yards often depends on their having obtained orders from their own Government. The sooner, therefore, that orders for type 23 frigates are placed, the better placed United Kingdom yards will be to bid seriously for overseas orders.
  I hope that the Government recognise the needs of our industrial base. I am aware that I do not need to repeat my next point to the Minister. After all, we were told yesterday that
  "we have as a Minister of State for Defence Procurement a Member of Parliament who is probably the brightest person in the House, and someone of great competence."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 97.]
  I do not know whether that was just an appeal for promotion from the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). I am sure, however, that these issues do not need to be repeated.

  203
  We want orders to be placed now, not simply to be rolled over because the Government want to create space in the public sector spending requirements for tax cuts. If yards close as a result of orders being postponed because the Government have sought to save money for tax cuts, the Tory party will truly be placing party before country, and placing short-term electoral needs before the defence of the country. I hope that the Government will consider that point seriously, and that they will move forward as quickly as possible to place orders, especially for the type 23 frigate.
  I hope that the Minister will also be prepared to look seriously at whether our reduced civil shipping capacity is sufficient in terms of being able to call up from trade all the vessels that might be required in time of war to move the appropriate equipment overseas. There is a grave worry that the British mercantile marine is becoming so depleted that it will not have the capacity in time of war or in time of need to shift heavy equipment overseas, and that we shall be forced to depend on what can be taken in the spot market and what can be taken from allies—who may not be our allies in those circumstances. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that point.
  The next issue is far more political. I, like many others, very much resent the way in which the Government have, today and on previous occasions, cast doubts on the Labour party's commitment to the defence of this country—as if, in some way, it was the preserve of the Conservative party. It is noticeable that there are two deserters from among the Ministers who were here when those statements were made. Given that the boundaries of their seats have been redrawn, they have chosen not to fight but to flee the field of battle and to seek pastures new—in one case successfully and in the other case, not yet successfully.
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): On a purely personal point, the hon. Gentleman may like to confirm with his hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who is sitting here, that my seat has completely disappeared, most unfortunately. Luckily, I have been fortunate in being selected for another constituency.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although this is a fairly broad debate, it will not encompass constituency arrangements and rearrangements.
  Mr. Davidson: The Minister's defence is very poor, given that the entire seat has probably not disappeared. Is he saying that there were no survivors whom he wished to continue to represent? Is he saying that there was nobody at all left? Have they all been decanted to the new constituency?
  Mr. Fatchett: They are victims of friendly fire.
  Mr. Davidson: Yes, perhaps they are. I rest my case on that matter. The "brightest man in the House" would no doubt beat me if it came to an exchange on the matter.
  I hope that the Minister will take the points I have made into consideration, and that he will announce later today that he is placing an order for type 23 frigates as quickly as possible, so that Yarrow can get the order and keep its men in work.
  7.7 pm
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: It gives me great and belated pleasure today to welcome the announcement on orders for the support helicopter, the Tomahawk missile and, above all, the attack helicopter for which many of my hon. Friends have been pressing for so long. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his predecessors promised, our armed forces are now among the best equipped in the world, to the benefit of our country, our service men and, of course, our defence industry, even if, sadly, we have not always provided the prime contractor.
  I saw Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen squirm yesterday at the bizarre intervention by their new and raw recruit, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Old Labour, which still believes that British defence policy revolves around what I have heard described as pay, pregnancy and poofs, may welcome him to its bosom, but, luckily, new Labour has sound men who are not shy of recognising that more than 400,000 jobs are dependent on our defence industry, which has an export value of no less than £5 billion and which makes up the largest export sector of United Kingdom manufactured goods.
  I am proud to have in my constituency a distinguished company, Racal, which has proved its record throughout the world. It continues to lead the world in certain technologies, such as Racal Radio, which presently holds 25 to 30 per cent. of the tactical radio market outside the United States.
  However, the defence industry faces increasing pressure at home and abroad from foreign competition. Its contribution to the United Kingdom's balance of payments, employment and skills base must never be underestimated. In that context, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces knows, I have long been concerned about the staffing levels of British embassies and the number of defence attachés, which is small in comparison with the United States and France. France has now overtaken us to become the second leader in the field.
  I have therefore been pushing for an enhanced role for defence attachés which involves the closest possible co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that the Government will stick to the yardstick of satisfactory access to the host nation which also involves the right rank structure. I hope that senior serving officers will be used in such roles so that they can talk to Governments at the right sort of level in order to promote British industry.
  The latest "Statement on the Defence Estimates" has another cosy, comforting subtitle, "Stable Forces in a Strong Britain". The snag is that, by definition, the armed services are needed primarily to maintain or create stability elsewhere, particularly when British interests are at stake.
  Stability has hardly been a well-known feature of service life through the ages. It is not expected. But after three major reviews in three years, it is high time for a period free at least from extra turbulence. I am sure that the House will want to protect the quality of life of service men and women and their families who put up with so much disruption.

  205
  I believe from my continuing links with the military—I declare an interest as a reserve officer—that there is an increasing and worrying trend outside the forces to equate life in the armed forces with civilian jobs. The distinction is in that very sentence. A job can never be the same as a way of life and there are considerable dangers in regarding the services as a business to be managed rather than led. We want our armed forces to be run not by managers but by leaders—people with flair and initiative. Unless we attract and, above all, retain good-quality recruits, the fine reputation of our troops worldwide will be prejudiced, and the very qualities that we so admire—their efficiency, skill, bravery and, not least, their special brand of humour—will be less evident.
  Service men endure long periods of training and often mundane and repetitive tasks offset by deployments to dangerous troublespots around the world at minimal notice. It takes a particular kind of person to cope with that and it was profoundly disappointing to hear the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday that the long-promised 24-month tour interval is yet to be achieved, despite the welcome reduction in tension in Northern Ireland.
  In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that, even at a time of high unemployment, there is a marked shortfall in recruitment. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not only to be aware of the problem but to continue to emphasise and promote the variety and sort of challenges that soldiers relish—from higher formation training, which sadly has been curtailed recently, to training units in more than 20 countries spreading expertise and good will; from high intensity capability to humanitarian relief work.
  Soldiers are very good at disguising their worries about change and its effects on their career prospects. No one expects operational stability, but the time is ripe for at least stability of funding after defence cuts which have resulted in expenditure falling below 3 per cent. of GDP.
  I make no apology for concentrating on the human aspect of service life, because unless that is addressed our capability is reduced, and how well we are now using that capability. I welcome the significant British presence in the ACE rapid reaction corps and the announcement of the joint rapid deployment force. However, the mind boggles at what sounds like multi-hatting at a level never before experienced even by our own flexible and tolerant forces—national, NATO, UN and Western European Union roles no less. If rationalisation is needed anywhere, it is certainly needed there.
  I share my right hon. Friend's resistance to the WEU's aspiration to be the defence arm of the European Union as well as the European pillar of NATO. Events in the Gulf and Bosnia have demonstrated yet again, firstly, the powerlessness of the United Nations, in the absence of a command structure, properly to respond to crises which blow up in this turbulent post-cold war era; secondly, the absurdity of the dual key arrangement in Bosnia, which paralysed NATO for months, undermining its authority, prolonging the conflict and costing many lives; and, lastly, the need for American commitment and leadership. As Winston Churchill once said, the United States will always do the right thing once it has exhausted all the possibilities. We must be thankful for that and the American role in NATO.
  206
  Let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continue to resist a defence union as firmly as we resist economic and monetary union. The time is not ripe, and may never be, for either. Close co-operation with other countries in common cause, of course, but, as one of the foremost powers for good in the world, we owe it to our service men and to our country to reject any constraints on pursuing our national interests as a sovereign state.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I must begin by explaining why this year's debate on the defence estimates is so important to me. It comes at the end of a year in which we have commemorated the 50th anniversary of the dreadful destructiveness of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki; a year in which we have also celebrated the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war in Europe and in south-east Asia. It also comes at a time when we have celebrated the 50th year since the birth of the United Nations.
  If one puts this debate in an even wider context, it takes place at a time when we have supposedly turned our backs on the era of the cold war which so disfigured the way in which we saw other people in society; the common strands of interest and the common threats to our survival. It comes at the end of a year in which the world, or most of it, signed up to an indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty. It comes at the end of a summer in which there has been worldwide condemnation of the French nuclear testing. It is the first time that I have ever encountered a significant number of British people positively shopping for what they described as "non-nuclear" wines. It comes at the end of a week in which Professor Joseph Rotblat, the nuclear physicist, was awarded the Nobel prize for campaigning, throughout his life, for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
  If one tries to locate all those huge events—the seismic shifts in public understanding and what is happening in the world—against the contents of the Government's "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", or the Minister's comments as the estimates have been presented to the House, it is almost impossible to detect that sense of seismic shift that has taken place. That missed opportunity in this year's debate is a matter of great sadness to me.
  One can still see a change from last year. There is greater talk of the Government finding efficiency savings or streamlining, but there is no strategic rethink of what defence and common security are fundamentally about. I would argue that this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" makes us more rather than less insecure than we were last year. I want to set out the four reasons why I believe that and why I shall be voting against the estimates tonight.
  The first reason relates to the nuclear vacuum in relation to Ministers' opening speeches. During the entire period of the Government's life they have recognised that they no longer have a sustainable argument about a nuclear deterrent. What they do have is a nuclear dependence. They are increasingly dependent upon a logic that is not only obsolete but extremely dangerous. It is an obsession beyond the dimensions of rational debate, and beyond any recognition of the huge costs of missed opportunities. These are both the costs involved in cutting

  207
  conventional defence services and the wider social and economic costs that society must bear as a result of the obsession with nuclear weapons.
  I was greatly relieved by the comments of Field Marshal Lord Carver, who—putting his view in a very technical way—said, "The trouble with nuclear arms is that we do not know what the bloody hell they are for. We cannot use them independently; we can't even run them without the help of the USA. Indeed, no sane person would use them at all."
  During the summer, in slightly more diplomatic terms, two more military experts expressed their views. Professor Sir Ronald Mason, who was the Government's chief scientific adviser between 1978 and 1983, said that it was fairly clear that we were "over-egging the pudding" in relation to the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons. He went on to argue that the cost of operating and refitting the Trident submarine would be between £40 billion and £50 billion during its lifetime, and that we could save £10 billion by not ordering the final Trident submarine—or the whole amount, if we mothballed the lot. The same argument was then put by Sir Nigel Bagnall, Chief of the Defence Staff between 1985 and 1989.
  The House should remember the scale of those costs when discussing other decisions in regard to where savings are to be found—whether the subject is the defence estimates or other social and economic programmes. This makes Greenpeace's estimate that Trident would cost £33 billion during its lifetime seem positively modest.
  For me, the problem with the nuclear weapons programme is that we still refuse to address the fact that such weapons are almost entirely irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict. Certainly they have been irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict in my lifetime. I suspect that they will be irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict during the lifetimes of my children or their children. We shall, however, continue to pay a huge price for the obsession with an obsolete system of defence. It is a distortion of our language that we still presume to speak of nuclear weapons as though they were part of a sensible defence and deterrence strategy, and I feel deeply ashamed of the fact that we do so in the House.
  Beyond that psychological dependency, I have a second reason for voting against the estimates. The Government refuse point-blank to condemn French nuclear testing, at a time when the public are appalled and the international community is outraged. What have the Government done? Have they been outspoken in their condemnation of the French? No; they have been "out to lunch" on their indifference. I know that the Government are not used to speaking with the support of the majority of the British public, but I should have thought that, given that only 3 per cent. of the country's population supports the actions of the French, even Polly would have had the sense to take the kettle off this silent support. France's actions are internationally frowned on, and it is a source of despair that Britain remains silent when other countries have spoken out much more courageously.
  Why are we doing this? I believe—and this is the third reason why I will vote against the estimates—that we are moving into a new era of Anglo-French co-operation in the development of the next generation of nuclear weapons. I say that with reference to documents that have already been made available to the House. According to the Defence Committee's second report on the progress of the Trident programme, the Ministry of Defence has been
  208
  "talking actively with the Americans, and the French, on how to co-operate effectively in the use of …facilities"
  at the Atomic Weapons Establishment
  "as part and parcel of the business of exercising and maintaining proper stewardship of … nuclear weapons".
  The report adds that
  "stronger links could usefully be forged with France who, with untested new warheads, are more anxious to test than are we, and who may indeed recommence doing so following the elections in 1995 unless suitable alternatives are available. Indeed, the UK may itself learn from this co-operation".
  This year, in its eighth report, the Committee provided an update, saying:
  "Last year we urged greater co-operation with the US and France in non-nuclear testing. MoD reported on some technical discussions with the French on issues related to nuclear weapons stewardship such as hydrodynamic experiments and computer simulation. Progress has not been swift … Whilst Britain would want to retain a capability to test independently, an efficient use of resources may involve some specialisation … there may be considerable potential for the French and Americans to be invited to conduct work at Aldermaston which may go some way towards filling the void created by a CTBT"—
  a comprehensive test ban treaty.
  What is that void? It is spelt out on page 77 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates":
  "The United Kingdom's capability in nuclear warhead science and technology is principally vested in the Atomic Weapons Establishment … at Aldermaston".
  Discussing a "streamlined technical programme", the statement says:
  "It would, however, also necessitate changes … in our ability to develop new warheads which may be required in the future. So, whereas in the past we have used a very small number of underground nuclear tests to provide a cost-effective means of maintaining capabilities, we are now looking to a further enhancement of 'above ground' experiments"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the 10 minutes are up.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech. I want to pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and, in the short time available to me, to concentrate on the costs of the MOD's ban on homosexuals serving in the Army.
  This is not a speech that I particularly want to make, and it is probably not a speech that many of my hon. Friends particularly want to hear, but it is a speech that I think needs to be made—if for no other reason, simply because Ministers ought to be aware of the financial costs of the current ban.
  First, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), the Minister of State, for the positive and helpful way in which he has responded to representations that I have made for a number of months. I also thank him and the Ministry for agreeing to set up an internal review, in the light of the recent High Court judgment and the views of one of the judges. I hope that the review will be genuinely independent; I must say that I was a little concerned by some of the comments by one or two senior members of the armed forces that I read immediately after the announcement of it.

  209
  If the review is to inspire any confidence in the Select Committee that eventually considers its findings in the House during this year, it will need to be seen to be genuinely independent within the MOD. I would prefer a much wider review, but I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend for the action that he has taken.
  I should like the ban to be rescinded. I do not think that we should wait for the High Court or the Appeal Court, for the review being set in hand by my hon. Friend, for the House to have to consider the Select Committee report or—worst of all—for the European Court. I believe that, in this day and age, the ban is morally wrong.
  Nearly 300 people have been discharged from the armed services since 1990 for the crime of being gay. Almost all of them were discharged not because they committed any act of homosexuality while engaged in their duties, but simply for the crime of being gay. No one knew; they were shopped—I know all about that. They were shopped by newspapers, by jealous friends, by people outside who wanted to make trouble. Not once did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State doubt the courage of all those brave fighting men who fought in the Gulf war and in Bosnia.
  The Minister of State might like to know that only a few weeks ago half a dozen airmen—four navigators and two pilots—were discharged. They had been serving this country, putting their lives on the line in Bosnia flying Tornados. We have heard repeatedly from Ministers and hon. Members in this debate about the great courage and the selfless acts of duty exhibited and performed by members of our armed forces in the defence of this country. But if some of them happen to be gay, even though they are not indulging in any gay practices—I agree that that would be unacceptable on active service—it is a different story. They are discharged simply for the crime of being gay. Three hundred of them have been discharged for that crime in the past five years.
  Goodness knows how much all the investigations have cost, but I have an estimate that it takes one man investigating a regular soldier who is a suspected homosexual 34 days to complete his investigations on behalf of the special investigations branch; and the total cost of all investigations between 1990 and 1995 is estimated at £7 million.
  These investigations are degrading, immoral and wholly unnecessary. While the current ban persists, a person found to be gay should at least be honourably discharged and not put through these degrading hoops.
  The training costs of all these service personnel must be horrendous. I do not know what it costs to train a Tornado pilot or navigator, but it must be a great deal of money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, formerly the Chief Secretary, can ill afford to waste money training people to replace others who are perfectly good at their jobs. No Conservative Member doubts the bravery of those who serve in the armed forces. No one doubts that the half dozen men recently discharged from the RAF fought for their country and put their lives on the line.
  Next come the legal costs of the cases currently before the High Court. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that, ultimately, if this House does not resolve the issue, these cases will end up in the European Court. I
  210
  suspect that all hon. Members know that that court will rule that this is discrimination, and we shall have to give way. I do not want the laws that we control to be made for us by the European Court, whose judgments usually involve average compensation for cases of this kind of about £50,000. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State, like the Chief Secretary, can do their own sums and realise that millions of pounds will be involved.
  I tell the House: this ban will end. It may end if there is a Labour Government; but as there will not be a Labour Government it will end for other reasons. I do not want it ended under duress from the European Court. I want it ended because, as my hon. Friend said earlier, the Army is well capable of coping with change. Hundreds of homosexuals serve in today's Army; some of them are hunted down, others are not discovered. Most of them are congratulated by my hon. Friends; most have tributes paid to them by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby—but most of them are never known. If they are gay, they keep it quiet. They do nothing stupid and they serve their country with distinction. I find it perverse that someone like me can serve in Her Majesty's Government but not in Her Majesty's armed forces. That is ridiculous.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. John Hutton:
  First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on the powerful, impassioned and effective arguments that he adduced in support of his proposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), however, I want to confine my remarks primarily to procurement issues, not just as they affect my constituents—although they do—but more generally too.
  I am concerned about how the Ministry of Defence handles major procurement policy matters. The MOD cannot continue to have it both ways. It cannot, on the one hand, say that it is its policy to retain an effective United Kingdom industrial capability and, at the same time, allow major procurement programmes to slide ever further behind schedule.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Govan referred to the batch 2 Trafalgar class programme, which provides a vivid illustration of the problem. The batch 2 Trafalgar class submarine programme is nearly two and a half years behind schedule. The main reason for that delay, as the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), said in the Navy debate in February, is that the Government wanted to generate a competition for the prime contractorship of the programme, and paid GEC tens of millions of pounds to put together a rival bid for it.
  I believe that the Government's policy is inconsistent and does not bear serious analysis. In addition to the industrial damage that the delay is likely to cause my constituency, and the shipbuilding industry in general, it is also legitimate to argue that there will probably be operational implications for the Royal Navy. The batch 2 Trafalgar class programme is designed to replace the aging Swiftsure class; many of those submarines are nearly 20 years old. The extra two and half years delay now built into the programme may have an effect on the Navy's ability to maintain an operational fleet of 12 strategic submarines nuclear, even though I understand that that is still Government policy. If possible, I should

  211
  like the Minister to reassure the House today that the delay will not have such an implication for the Royal Navy.
  There can be no further delay or slippage in the ordering of the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. As I have said, the programme is already two and a half years behind. I do not expect the Minister to say today that he is about to order the submarines, but I do want him to say that there will be no further delay and that the Government will honour the timetable that they have proclaimed—to order the submarines, at the latest, by June 1996.
  While we are on the subject of the Trafalgar programme, I would also like the Minister to assure my constituents who expect to build the submarines—I have no doubt that they will—that the Ministry will follow the practice that it has adopted for other major submarine building contracts such as Trident and release long-lead funding to allow some of the early steel work needed to construct the boats to begin at the earliest opportunity. That will not at a stroke close the gap opening up in VSEL's order book, but it will go a long way towards doing so.
  In addition, therefore, to confirming the new timetable for the submarines, I want the Minister to confirm that the Government are considering issuing long-lead funding.
  Secondly, we need to look seriously, in the context of major procurement contracts, at the Government's policy of maintaining competition as the principal driving force behind such contracts. It is becoming increasingly hard, especially at prime contractorship level, to secure competition for major programmes. As our industrial capability and our defence industrial base continues to shrink it will become ever harder to secure contracts exclusively through competitive tendering. In shipbuilding—my particular concern—competition does not apply to submarine construction, because VSEL is the only shipyard in the United Kingdom licensed to construct nuclear submarines. And we know that the Government no longer want to order any diesel-electric submarines.
  Frankly, nor does competition apply any more to large ship construction either because VSEL, as the Government have acknowledged—this is a commonly known fact—is the only shipyard capable of building large vessels for the Royal Navy. Instead of forcing many shipyards to go through an abortive competitive tendering process which is entirely bogus, as we know was the case in relation to the batch 2 tendering programme, the Government should be much more upfront about the NAPNOC procedure—no acceptable price, no contract. That is a way of ensuring adequate value for money for taxpayers, which is a perfectly legitimate concern of Government.
  On the issue of procurement generally, perhaps we could leave the final word and judgment on the Government's policy to the industry itself. On 21 March 1995, the Defence Manufacturers Association, in evidence to the Joint House of Commons Defence and Trade and Industry Select Committee, said:
  "Sadly, the MoD procurement policies have, until now, done little of a positive nature to support industry's chances of retaining a competitive edge."
  I hope that the Government will give that view and comment from industry proper emphasis and consideration.
  212
  Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Govan referred to export promotion. I understand that the MOD estimates that the future UK naval shipbuilding requirement in the three remaining yards will be sufficient to support only 8.500 jobs in the UK shipbuilding industry. That is not enough to support even the existing reduced employment levels in the UK shipbuilding industry. Therefore, if we are to retain employment levels, it will he important for the British Government to get behind the UK shipbuilding industry and to support its export potential. The only way they can do that is to do what other European countries do: back effective winners. At the moment, however, it is not a policy of the British Government to back individual yards. Consequently, foreign orders are left to competition between yards. That does not happen in other European countries. The British Government need to get behind successful British yards and back winners in relation to export potential.
  I am glad that the Government remain committed to the landing platform dock replacement programme because it will be essential if the policy of the Secretary of State for Defence for a rapid deployment force—his new initiative announced yesterday—is to be brought into being. Amphibiosity will be central to that. In turn, the LPDs are central to ensuring that amphibiosity.
  The Government must make it clear again that they want to keep to the timetable for ordering the landing platform dock replacements. As I understand it, that should mean an award of contract at the end of this year.
  I want to ask the Minister some direct questions about the landing platform helicopters. I understand that HMS Ocean was quite seriously damaged when launched earlier this month at the Kvaerner yard on the Clyde. How serious was that damage? Will it delay the commissioning of HMS Ocean and its coming into operation with the Navy? In particular, what implication might any further delay have for my constituents at VSEL who, under the contract to construct HMS Ocean, expect that ship to arrive in Barrow for fitting out early in the new year? Where will the work on HMS Ocean to repair that damage be undertaken? It needs to go into dry dock. Where will it go to have that work done?
  The Upholders were referred to in speeches yesterday and today. The Minister will be aware that there are four Upholder classes. The entire fleet of Upholders is in my constituency awaiting the conclusion perhaps of an export agreement with the Canadian Government or some other purchaser. I hope that the Government will confirm that such negotiations are continuing to advance and that a prospect exists of an early agreement for a purchaser of the Upholder class to be found.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Before you took the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made a succinct and seriously responsible speech, an example commendably followed by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). Sad to say, however, the Labour party has somewhat damaged its laboriously pursued aspiration for credibility in defence with a breathlessly long—16 lines without a full stop—and incoherent amendment urging the Opposition not to approve the defence estimates today.
  The Labour party then doubly damaged aspiration for credibility with the extremely quixotic intervention of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who

  213
  argued that Nye Bevan and others had no fear of the Soviet threat in 1951, an attitude not shared by Clem Attlee and an interpretation of history that is in total negation of the facts. Even from the perspective of that year, one could only have remembered what happened to Finland, the loss of the Karelia province and of the northern region to the Soviets, and the rape of the Baltic states in May 1940. The Soviet occupation of the eastern part of Poland was also part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
  Also before you came in, Madam Deputy Speaker, the debate was illuminated by the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, whose speeches are never knowingly understated and today was no exception. His ebullience and bravura might have obscured the real problems that the armed forces face, especially in terms of recruitment and retention, and above all of the future role of our troops in Bosnia as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation implementation force. Luckily, those problems are self-evident and were well discussed by my hon. Friends during the debate.
  The Minister of State is very good at talking up the reality and his remarks remind me of those of the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who spoke with such pride about the United Kingdom punching above its weight—a phrase which, in military terms, candidly terrifies me. All I will say is that, mercifully, the "Front Line First" review has not gone as badly as I had feared, that the slogan—and I loathe slogans in defence matters—of "waste into weapons" is not misplaced, and that, by virtue of the savings in support, extremely important enhancements of our weapon systems and capabilities have been made.
  The procurement in air and missile systems alone—more Chinook Mark IIs, the EH101 medium support helicopters, the Longbow Apaches, the C130 Js—will greatly enhance the mobility and flexibility of our armed forces, as will the submarine launch Tomahawk cruise missiles increase their reach and capability to strike.
  I hope that there is sufficient leeway in our budgets for the vital procurement of a conventionally armed stand-off weapon for the Royal Air Force, a modern anti-armour weapon, the maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Nimrod and the Astor airborne stand-off radar system. We must therefore continue to attempt to save money and we have sectors in which important savings can be made.
  It makes no sense that we should employ 11,903 German civilians to support our armed forces in Germany when bases in Britain are being closed such as Abingdon for the RAF, Chivenor, which is to reopen for the Royal Marines, Brawdy, which was closed but has been reopened for the Army, Finningley, Scampton and many others. The Royal Air Force can operate perfectly from home bases instead of from Germany and deploy rapidly to wherever it is needed.
  The same argument applies to the Army. It is not even as if there are proper training grounds for our tanks in Germany. It is true that we are looking for some in Poland, but largely they have to exercise in Canada. There are 33,000 Army and RAF personnel in Germany. I understood their presence there during the cold war under the terms of the Brussels treaty, but it is now an anachronism and needs to be reviewed.
  214
  There are major savings to be made in procurement. The National Audit Office report on the Eurofighter programme needs careful study. We must never again involve ourselves in such a bureaucratic co-operative programme with an expensive management agency superimposed, a multiplicity of production lines, and so on. I trust that we will not make the same mistake for the new generation Horizon 2000 anti-aircraft frigate.
  There is also the headquarters of the Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood which costs £400 million. There is also the £52 million that has gone down the drain to pay compensation to service women who became pregnant during their time in the armed forces and the risk that we may have to pay compensation to members of the armed forces who had to leave because they were homosexual. As the Chairman of the Special Select Committee dealing with the Armed Forces Bill during a previous Parliament, I must say that I profoundly disagree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) as, I suspect, do the chiefs of staff.
  I can look at this only from a parent's point of view. Within their ranks the armed forces have many young people at a highly sensitive age when they are likely to be influenced by their superiors and I do not think that it is in any way appropriate for homosexuality to be condoned in the armed forces.
  Our party needs to look resolutely to the future to present a defence programme which meets the needs into the next century. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said so eloquently yesterday, much more effective use should be made of the reserves of all three services. It is disturbing that the volunteer reserve element of all three services is reducing in size. With the reserve forces legislation, there will be an opportunity to revolutionise our use of reserve forces which will be extremely cost-effective.
  We must improve the training of our armed forces rather than do it damage. I bitterly deplore the decision to sell off the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. I have suggested that it should be a tri-service cadet college to provide the discipline and grounding in science and military education that the regular officers of the future will need.
  We must improve the mobility and flexibility of our armed forces. The joint rapid deployment force is a step in the right direction, but, in addition to the medium support helicopters and transports that we already have, we will need a strategic transport force. For my money that should be the McDonnell Douglas C17. We need the heavy lift as part of our capability to deploy the full range of our armed forces, including armoured fighting vehicles, rapidly to wherever they may be required. If our Government do that, they will have done well for the future.
  7.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Since the 10-minute limit on speeches still applies, I am sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in detail. I would have liked to have dealt in more detail with the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) so as to endorse, not for the first time, his call for consideration

  215
  to be given to young people. The Government have done enormous damage to young people over the past 15 years and those activities should not be allowed to continue.
  I would have liked to have mentioned hardware at some length, but I shall restrict my remarks simply to asking for an update on the F3. One view needs to be put which may not have been mentioned before. If we buy the American alternative, it will be twin engined but with only one air crew. If the F3 replacement is to be used on long sorties with several air-to-air refuellings, there may be a disadvantage to moving from the pilot and navigator to simply pilot operation. That is a small point, but the Minister will be aware that for many years Finningley in south Yorkshire trained navigators and one would not wish to see them becoming redundant, along with many of the others who worked at Finningley.
  My main concern is that the Government seem to be adopting a preposterous approach. We have heard about the strong defence, strong Britain. Everybody has mentioned the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Tory party conference. There was another speech in which a prospective Conservative candidate was able to boast that he employed people at 89p an hour. It is no wonder they applauded him and it is no wonder that the same people applauded what The Daily Telegraph called the "ill-judged rhetoric" of the Secretary of State.
  Yesterday's speech from the Secretary of State was more muted and reasonable. It was less aggressive. Perhaps someone has had a word with him and persuaded him that the SAS are not only tough but intelligent. They may be better at French and Spanish than the Secretary of State. They are capable and intelligent people.
  The Secretary of State clearly has a great deal to learn and I hope that he listens to the Minister of State, who is rather more familiar with the British armed forces. Perhaps the Minister might persuade the Secretary of State to visit some operational RAF stations to have a look at the squadron programme. We have heard about the 24-month question for Army postings overseas, but the Minister is well aware that many of the air crew and essential ground staff in the Royal Air Force would greatly welcome rather less frequent postings overseas.
  I know that the postings are for only three or four months, but I know of people who have done six or seven tours in the past three and a half years. That may be attractive to single young men, but when service men are married with children, the burden on their wives is excessive. It may be one of the factors in a problem to which the House should attend—the morale of Her Majesty's forces.
  The morale in the Royal Air Force is higher than the Government deserve, given the sacrifices that it has had to make because of overstretch. I have mentioned strong Britain, but since the Government took office we have dropped from sixth to 16th in the world prosperity league. However, our commitments remain the same and the Government still wish to stride the stage of world affairs. They still wish to occupy a place on the United Nations Security Council. They still wish to play a leading part in NATO.
  The problem is that the economic capacity does not match the political appetite. At the moment, the burden of that overweening approach by Her Majesty's Government is borne by a shrinking number of service men and it is not fair. The burden on the men and women in the services and on their families is excessive. If the Secretary
  216
  of State wishes to take a tough line, let him take it with the Treasury to ensure that we are not placing too great a burden on our service men.
  The Minister recognises how serious the burdens are. It cannot go on. We must match our commitments to our capacity or the Government will stand even more guilty of adopting a preposterous position.
  Mr. Soames: Not for the first time in a defence debate the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the most serious problems that we face in running defence operations. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the Bett review which has been so maligned in the House in the past two days tried to square the circle by dealing with those matters in a formal way? I believe that Sir Michael Bett appreciated the difficulties.
  Mr. Hardy: The Minister will forgive me, but I do not have time to refer to the Bett review. I want to make two more points, one of which it is extremely appropriate for me to mention.
  I have been a member of the Western European Union for longer than anyone in the House and I have been heavily involved in the debates and committee work of that assembly for a long time. I recognise that it has, and must have, an important role in European defence. However, the Minister must understand that, as it stands, the Western European Union cannot fulfil the aspirations that both sides of the House have for it. It needs to be given a great deal more attention. I believe that the Council of Ministers has not yet given sufficient attention to the implications of the widening that has taken place over the past year. It is right to point out that, for all sorts of reasons, the Community is not capable of serving such a European role. Discussion must take place in a rather more mature way than has been the case in recent months. Britain cannot afford to be asked to punch more than its weight, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood reminded us.
  The Government need to be rather more even handed. The taxpayer pays for defence. We all pay tax, regardless of the area of the country from which we come. However, the Yorkshire Post told us the other day, in a full and interesting report, about the closure of the RAF depot at Harrogate and the fact that the jobs had gone to Wyton in the Prime Minister's constituency. Also, the Army school at Harrogate is to be transferred to a southern coastal county. Many of us suspect that there is now a retreat of defence expenditure into Conservative political fastnesses—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it certainly looks like that. Perhaps I am wrong, but the Government need to deal with the growing suspicion that defence expenditure is being concentrated in areas of Conservative political strength.
  The other cause for concern is the excessive eagerness of the Government to contract out. I intervened on the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the RAF debate on 4 May and asked whether he accepted that the RAF had to retain sufficient capacity to be an intelligent customer. He said that he entirely agreed with me. What evidence has there been since 4 May that the services—in particular the RAF, which has to maintain high technological capacity—are being given that capacity? The former Minister said that that was why the RAF was to maintain capacity at Sealand and St. Athan, but what evidence is there that the Government accept the

  217
  point that he made in the House several months ago? Is there not a real danger that the Government's commitment to dogma and privatisation is being taken too far?
  This is an important matter because air crews must fly aircraft that have been serviced. They know that those who have trained in the RAF and are dedicated to the service are men of enormous technological skill. What guarantee has the House and the service that those skills will be retained and that the customer, the service and the taxpayer will continue to get value for money?
  I have little faith that after 16 years the Government have demonstrated their fitness to maintain responsibility for the defence services. We need a change of heart and a more intelligent approach. The sooner we have a general election—which will at least save me from having to listen to Conservative dogma—the better.
  8.3 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is not often that I seek to speak in a debate on defence because I am one of those few hon. Members unlucky enough not to have a service base in my constituency—even though the towns of Hastings, Rye and Winchelsea were significant in the birth of the Royal Navy, as three of the original seven Cinque Port towns. If hon. Members want an explanation of why there were seven Cinque Port towns, I would have to explain that at some other time, as Madam Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order if I tried to do so now.
  There is an active Territorial Army unit in my constituency, which has invited me to visit it soon. There is also an exceedingly large and enthusiastic group of service cadets. In this day and age, when so many people think that youth services are under threat, it is heartening to see such enthusiasm for the cadets in Hastings and Rye. Indeed, were it not for them and the TA, most of our moving Remembrance Sundays, and, this summer, VE and VJ days, would not have the significance that they have, given the emotional part that the forces play in our civic life.
  One issue has recently come to my attention, although I am rather confused about it following the receipt of a letter this evening. I have just heard from some parents that the whole of the air training element of our local cadets is to be moved from RAF Manston, when it closes, to RAF Benson. Without making a plea for something to be done about the appalling condition of the roads in my constituency, I must point out that it takes at least four hours to get from Hastings to RAF Benson. Given the need for cadets to be in school, and the requirement that schools meet the high standards that we are now insisting on, it will be difficult to persuade schools to allow children to leave early so that they can get to RAF Benson and back in reasonable time. At weekends and during the school holidays, the facilities are used by organisations such as the Air Training Corps.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has told my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that a Bulldog is to be sent to RAF Manston so that the cadets can get some flying time. That is splendid, but only until RAF Manston is closed. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement could clarify the matter
  218
  so that I can assure the parents of the air cadets that they will have reasonable flying time. We have spent a great deal of time debating the need to ensure adequate recruitment to our forces, so we must remember that many recruits come from the cadets. If they are put off by the fact that they do not have the opportunities to go up in a plane, the RAF will suffer in the long term.
  My constituency has more than those enthusiastic cadets. At the other end of the spectrum, the contribution that Hastings and Rye makes to our defence comes through exceedingly high-tech research facilities. One company, Computing Devices, was a key player in putting reconnaissance systems on the Tornados that were so successful in the Gulf war. Since then, technology has moved on at an ever-increasing pace. That company is now a world leader in digital battlefield mapping—so much so that the managing director recently led a presentation to the US Defense Secretary. We are at the forefront of technology in this highly important area of future effective reconnaissance.
  One of the developments on which the company is making progress was used in the Gulf war and was effectively described by Frederick Forsyth in his novel about that war. I certainly could not better his description. Since then, there have been further developments. The key feature of the equipment is that from a very great height one can observe what is happening on a battlefield without—this might seem slightly silly—having to worry about the height of hills.
  However, I understand that the Army is keen to develop its own digital mapping system. I am sure that 52 per cent. of the population will say that boys will be boys and boys will have their toys. Those of us who run household budgets know that the last thing to do is to allow those toys to put our budgets under pressure. Much of this debate has been about the pressure on budgets.
  I have a vision of what the Army wants to do with its own digital mapping system. I can envisage an armoured personnel carrier or something of such size trundling out on to an open area which is not under attack and somehow putting up into the air all the kit that is required for observation on top of—perhaps—a telescopic line.
  One of the key factors of such reconnaissance is that one needs a clear picture. If the wind blows, what happens to the quality of the picture from the top of that telescopic line? How high can the telescopic line go before it starts bending under the weight of the equipment at the top of it?
  There are many questions to be asked, not all as simple and silly, but to me, the net effect could be that we are indulging in a potentially significant waste of public money. The quality of information coming from the aeroplanes involved in such surveillance is improving—I am sure—on a weekly basis and will instantaneously provide the Army with all the information that it needs without it having to develop its own form of battlefield digital mapping.
  I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that we will not see competitive research going on in an area in which we are already well ahead of the international field, especially as we are now emphasising. There is no point in wasting scarce public resources in duplicating, and duplicating inefficiently, research that is already going on.

  219
  I ask my hon. Friend again for reassurances that we will see progress, especially in negotiations with the Germans, to ensure that the Eurofighter goes into production and that the Germans' current demands for a higher percentage of the build to be allocated in Germany is resisted. Granting such a demand would, of course, take jobs from the UK and its defence industry when so much of the technical development and the excellence of the Eurofighter has indeed come from British companies and their brilliant research.
  We have talked about a strong defence and a strong Britain. One of the messages that I have taken from this debate is that many people have not yet grasped that strong defence means high-tech defence. It is not necessarily the number of pairs of feet that can march behind the beat of the drum that matters, but ensuring that the armed forces have the best and highest level of equipment that can be developed to ensure that they are more efficient and more effective than the potential enemies that they may face—which in these hazardous days could be anywhere in the world.
  I am glad for the sake of the companies in my constituency that we are, investing so heavily in high-quality research. Will the Minister assure me that we will continue to do so? Ensuring only that there are people to march to the beat of the drum is not the best way in which to ensure that we win a war.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) will forgive me if I do not specifically follow her remarks. I shall concentrate on two specific concerns: first, the future of defence staff training and secondly, the future of the magnificent and historic buildings in Greenwich, currently occupied by the Royal Naval college.
  The two concerns are inextricably linked. Following the decision earlier this year to merge the three separate staff colleges into a single tri-service college at Camberley, we have witnessed the shocking and demeaning spectacle of a British Secretary of State for Defence hawking some of the country's finest buildings and one of its most historic sites around the world in search of a buyer. I entirely endorse the regrets expressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the proposed sale of the Royal Naval college.
  We know that the Secretary of State is an ardent privatiser, but this proposed privatisation adds an entirely new dimension to what a former Conservative Prime Minister described disparagingly as "selling off the family silver". It is difficult to imagine any other country in the world possessing a complex of buildings of such quality and historical associations being prepared to sell off its national heritage in such a way—so much for the Secretary of State's absurd pretence in Blackpool last week to be standing up for British interests. "Do not mess with Britain", he might have said, but "would you like to make me an offer for one of our finest national monuments?"
  The Secretary of State's action is all the more deplorable when one realises that he has a dual responsibility, not only as Secretary of State for Defence, but as sole trustee for the Greenwich hospital estate. It is worth summarising briefly what that involves.
  220
  Greenwich comprises a remarkable complex, including the Queen's house, the national maritime museum and the Royal Observatory, which are all managed by the national maritime museum. It includes the Dreadnought seaman's hospital and the Devonport nurses home, which are both now sadly empty—one has been empty for getting on for 10 years and is showing signs of serious neglect and decay. There are also the buildings occupied by the Royal Naval college, including the famous painted hall and chapel, the King Charles, the William and Mary and the Queen Anne's quarters, and the Pepys building and other associated buildings—one incidentally containing what I believe is the country's smallest nuclear reactor.
  The very names of the buildings convey much of the history and significance of the site. The estate was originally a royal palace, in which both Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I were born, and was subsequently converted into a hospital and refuge for elderly and disabled seafarers—a foundation which celebrated its 300th anniversary last year. More recently, over the past 130 years, it has been a centre for naval training of the highest calibre, as all hon. Members who have visited the Royal Naval college will testify.
  The site has been of fundamental significance to the Royal Navy for centuries. It was where Nelson's body lay in state after Trafalgar, and has also for centuries been associated with the development of navigational skills, presided over as it is by the observatory standing on the meridian line from which the whole world measures time.
  The complex was built by the greatest names in British architecture: Inigo Jones, Christopher Wren, Webb, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh, to name just five. It has been described by, among others, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the previous Secretary of State for Health, as the British Versailles. One only has to pause to reflect on the likelihood of the French putting the palace of Versailles on the market to realise the enormity of what our Secretary of State is doing.
  How did it come to this? A little over a year ago the Ministry of Defence decided to merge the three separate service colleges into a single tri-service college. There were essentially two candidates as sites to accommodate the new college: Greenwich, the home of the Royal Naval college and the Joint Service Defence college, and Camberley, the home of the Army staff college. The way in which the choice of the preferred site was made tells us—I am afraid—a great deal about how the government of this country is currently conducted.
  As I highlighted in a debate on the Royal Navy on 16 February, the so-called consultation was characterised by obfuscation, secrecy, dubious and misleading figures, and tendentious interpretations, all designed to prove that Camberley was the best buy. The doubts that I expressed in the House, in correspondence with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and, indeed, in a meeting with him at the time, were brushed aside, and the Government confirmed their preference for Camberley. Interestingly, in the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about the political geography of defence procurement, the preferred site is located in Conservative-voting Surrey, rather than in Labour-voting south-east London.
  We learn, however, from yesterday's edition of The Independent that the figures on which the decision was based have had to be revised. It said in The Independent:

  221
  "Detailed studies into the cost of refurbishing the existing Army Staff College have disclosed that 'tens of millions of pounds' will be needed to carry out the work.
  The cost is substantially more than predicted in initial studies, raising fears that savings might not be seen until well into the next century.
  `There is a lot of teeth-sucking going on about the scale of the costs involved in the refurbishment of Camberley,' said a senior defence source.
  Alternative sites to Camberley are now under consideration to see whether greater savings can be made. And there are grave doubts whether the 1997 deadline for forming the tri-service college can now be met."
  In response to my earlier intervention, I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had apparently not seen this report but that he has undertaken to look into it. I hope that he will, as a matter of urgency, and inform the House whether the claim was made in the defence estimates that substantial financial savings will be made by the concentration on one site and that the closure of the four existing colleges in 1997 can still be achieved.
  I must also ask the Minister to recall that in his correspondence with me dated 10 February this year he said:
  "you are right to conclude that the principal reason for the difference in cost between the Greenwich and Camberley options is the need for significantly greater capital expenditure in the early years at Greenwich."
  If the report in The Independent yesterday is correct and the costs involved in establishing the tri-service college at Camberley are proving to be substantially greater than previously estimated, it must call into question the validity of the assumptions which led the Government to decide in favour of Camberley rather than Greenwich. If, as The Independent implies, alternative sites are now being considered, I trust that Greenwich is among them.
  In the meantime, Greenwich has been handed by the Secretary of State to the estate agents to be disposed of. Even worse has been the revelation that the Secretary of State intends to introduce measures in the forthcoming armed forces Bill to amend the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 which governs the use of the Greenwich site. Section 7 makes it clear that the site can be used
  "for the purposes of the naval service or any department of Her Majesty's Government".
  That remit would, of course, permit continuing use of the site by the Navy or the Ministry of Defence or any public service use—for example, heritage or educational activities sponsored by the relevant Government Department. It would not permit a private use of the premises and that, I fear, is the reason why the Secretary of State is seeking to change the legislation.
  After the fiasco of county hall being flogged to a Japanese corporation that has left the building empty and appears incapable of using it other than as an aquarium, we have every reason to feel real anxiety about the intentions of the Secretary of State for Defence. Not surprisingly his actions have prompted a national outcry. People, not only in Greenwich but throughout Britain, have made it clear beyond doubt that they do not want our magnificent architectural and historic heritage treated in that way. What should be done?
  222
  The first priority must be a further examination of the cost and feasibility of using the Greenwich site for the tri-service college. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about the latest estimates of the cost of the Camberley option or, if he cannot, that he will return to the House and do so in the near future.
  Secondly, the Secretary of State should immediately withdraw Greenwich from the estate agents' brochures and make it clear that the site will remain in use for appropriate public services within the terms of section 7 of the 1869 Act. If it is not possible to continue its use as a tri-service college, another appropriate public service use—either for heritage purposes, possibly run by the national maritime museum, or educational purposes—would clearly be appropriate.
  The way in which the Secretary of State who, as I stressed, has a dual responsibility in this matter, has treated the Royal Naval college site in Greenwich over the past year has been deplorable but, unlike county hall, it has at least not yet been sold. The Secretary of State therefore has the opportunity to repair the damage and act in the national interest. I hope that we shall hear—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I wish to refer to some of the issues raised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In the year of the 50th anniversary of the use of atomic weapons against Japan and the year in which the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been extended, I make no apology for wanting to speak about Trident and nuclear disarmament.
  The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been extended this year but that should not be a cause for complacency about the future. Nor is it any guarantee for the future. Some countries that have not signed the treaty almost certainly have nuclear weapons or nuclear capability—Israel, Pakistan and probably India.
  The difficulty is that there is a fundamental contradiction in the United Kingdom's defence policy. We try to convince would-be nuclear proliferators that nuclear weapons are not an effective way for them to guarantee their security. In fact, we go further and suggest that nuclear weapons are not a legitimate way for them to protect their national security because those other nations cannot possibly be trusted with nuclear weapons. At the same time, however, we retain and extend our own nuclear capability. As long as we insist on the importance to us of nuclear capability we do nothing but strengthen other people's perception of possible gains to them in becoming nuclear powers, especially when they know from experience that being a non-nuclear power is no guarantee that threats will not be used.
  North Korea is a case in point. I hold no brief for North Korea. None of us would wish that state to have nuclear capability. Since the 1950s, the United States had maintained tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea. They were removed in 1992 but in 1994 the United States Senate was urging their reintroduction into South Korea. What are the North Koreans expected to do in that situation? How are they expected to react? That contradiction in US policy has been matched precisely by the contradictions in the United Kingdom's policy.

  223
  One simple but serious question has been asked a number of times in this debate but has been answered very dismissively as if there were no real question to be answered. That question is, what is Trident for? Is it for use in war? If so, where and in what circumstances might the United Kingdom use it? I can accept that there may be some logic in arguing that there are circumstances in which we would have to use Trident. I might not agree with that point of view, but there is an element of logic in it. However, the argument usually used is one of deterrence and the need to deter an aggressor. It is suggested that we have to be aware of the possibility of unstable regimes obtaining nuclear weapons. The trouble is that such an argument is merely an acceptance that proliferation will occur and is inevitable.
  We would be much better off focusing on how to stop proliferation and how much more secure we would then be in the long term. I am sure that if proliferation occurs, sooner or later so will the use of nuclear weapons. The biggest danger of all is that proliferation will eventually lead to one or other, or both, the protagonists in a regional war having nuclear capability. There is certainly no record over the past 50 years that the theory of deterrence works in stopping regional wars.
  We have now reached a point from which, over the next few years, there will either be significant moves towards the progressive removal of weapons of mass destruction or an inexorable proliferation. The question that we should be asking ourselves is how do we, in our defence policy, help to move that process one way or the other.
  If we are serious about using Trident in moves towards disarmament—perhaps in multilateral negotiations—what are the best ways of going about it? Is Trident to be a bargaining counter'? There are two possible ways in which the United Kingdom might be involved in disarmament negotiations—as a participant in trading off, which is always a part of such negotiations, or as a broker in some sense. Is there a serious possibility that Trident—for all the massive destructive power in just one Trident submarine it is still only a tiny fraction of the weaponry in the United States and Russia—would carry real weight as a trade off or bargaining counter? What weight would we carry with Trident in those negotiations? I can see no possibility of our agreeing to reduce the Trident capability. After all, we have only four submarines when they are all in operation. At some point, even in that scenario, we would face the decision of going for all or nothing.
  We should seriously consider the real alternative, which is to become the first major ex-nuclear power, with the moral weight that that would carry, and the ability to act as a broker that would come with it. We have seen in recent peace negotiations examples of the way in which non-aligned nations can become involved in those negotiations and act as brokers. Norway's role with regard to the middle east is an obvious case in point. Is it not time that membership of the United Nations Security Council is not so directly and obviously linked to membership of the nuclear club?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke about the financial implications, and I do not have time to go through those again in detail. But I agreed with my right hon. Friend when he spoke about the possible impact on our economy, and related the sums that we are still spending on defence to what is happening in the other public services, with welfare cuts and so on.
  224
  I understand the position of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have defence industries in their constituencies, who are concerned about what will happen to the people who work there and about the efforts necessary for diversification and arms conversion. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield I believe that diversification can be achieved.
  In our economy we have started to develop an unhealthy reliance on arms sales to countries that we know are unreliable and sometimes despotic. I am not proud of the fact that we exported £5 billion worth of arms last year although the world market was declining. Why, in that effort, did 10 times as much Government money go towards promoting arms exports as went towards promoting civil exports? Why is the British taxpayer subsidising those sales? About one fifth of arms sales are paid for not by the foreign Governments concerned but by the British taxpayer, sometimes through tax credits and sometimes through subsidies.
  Who is being armed? In third-world countries violent conflicts are being fuelled, debts increased and social spending undermined. I do not believe that many British taxpayers want their money to be spent in that way.
  We need more than a review of our spending priorities. We need a fundamental shift in our policies away from reliance on nuclear weapons. We need real cuts in spending and we need to do something about the arms trade.
  8.32 pm
  Dr. John Gilbert: I shall not detain the House long. I start by congratulating the new Minister of State for Defence Procurement; I trust that he will enjoy his stay at the Ministry of Defence, which is a most enjoyable Ministry, and that he will ensure that we receive written answers to the questions that he cannot deal with in the time available at the end of the debate.
  Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, talked about the Gurkhas. I have not seen an official statement from the Ministry, so I should be obliged if we could be given an official notification if Gurkhas are to be recruited in the Parachute Regiment. If not, the story should be denied.
  If Gurkhas are to be recruited, what numbers are contemplated and what terms are to be offered? I am asking much the same questions as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. Will Gurkhas be employed on the same terms as the existing Gurkha battalions, or will they be paid on the same terms as British soldiers in the British Army? I foresee difficulties either way, if they are to be in a combined British-Gurkha unit. We should be told what structural organisation is proposed.
  I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who made an extraordinarily eccentric speech. I take the view that the Gurkhas are admirable in any capacity in which they are prepared to serve this country. We are extremely lucky to have them, and I wish that we could increase the numbers of them who serve with the British forces.
  I have one or two things to say about nuclear disarmament. It is beyond me how the Government have got themselves into their present position regarding nuclear weapons. When I consider the list of nuclear disarmaments that they have introduced in terms of

  225
  weapons systems—I am not talking about the capacity of the Trident system—I am surprised that they have not been awarded honorary membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
  Once we had nuclear depth charges; they have all gone.
  Dr. John Reid: Unilaterally.
  Dr. Gilbert: Unilaterally, as my Front-Bench colleague helpfully reminds me. We used to have Lance nuclear artillery; that has gone too. For a time we had cruise missiles; they have all gone. Now we are getting rid of the free-fall bomb, without any replacement. So we have no airborne delivery and no land-based delivery system. We are reduced to Trident alone.
  I do not accept that Trident is satisfactory as a sub-strategic system. It was never designed as such. I know that one can adduce arguments as to how it could be used, but I remain unconvinced. I ask the Government what would have happened if Saddam Hussein, whom we all now know had a biological capability, had chosen to use that capability against British troops in the Gulf? What possible response could the British Government have offered—sending a Trident to Baghdad? Surely Her Majesty's Government did not contemplate that course. Would they simply have relied on the poor British troops having to sweat it out in nuclear protective clothing, leaving them at a great disadvantage in operational conditions?
  I am the last to think that we should allow an enemy to dictate our targets or the weapon systems that we use, so what I am saying does not constitute an argument for our procuring a biological weapons capability and using that against the enemy. But surely we must be prepared when we are dealing with people such as Saddam Hussein. It could be anyone else; it could be the Libyans next month, or the Algerians or the Iranians. We never know where we shall find ourselves. Whoever would have thought that we would fight a war in the Gulf? We cannot be reduced to having only one option—Trident—for a nuclear weapons system. I greatly regret what the Government have done.
  Finally, what is being done and what attention is being paid in the Ministry of Defence these days to what the Americans call communications warfare? There is a serious body of thought in the Pentagon that suggests that the next war, if there is one, will involve few immediate casualties in battlefield terms, but will mean instead the total destruction of a country's communications systems.
  I do not believe that the figures are classified, but I do not have them at my fingertips, so let us say that about 80 per cent. of the day-to-day communications of the United States armed forces pass through the public telephone system. I should be surprised if the proportion in this country were very different. What research is being done in the Ministry of Defence? Is the question being seriously addressed, both in terms of self-defence and in terms of our ability to deter other people? To what extent are our communications systems dependent on the Internet, and how vulnerable will that be'?
  Have the Government had discussions on the subject with our American allies? If not, why not? What proposals do they have for our national defence in that respect, and what will they tell the British people about it? It is high
  226
  time that we had, if not a White Paper at least a separate chapter in the annual defence estimates to instruct us what our plans are and how much they will cost. I have a nasty feeling that we are extremely vulnerable in that area, and I have yet to hear a peep from the MOD that it is aware of such matters. I do not have the pleasure of serving on the Select Committee on Defence these days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I serve on another very enjoyable Committee instead.
  These are serious matters, and there are more and more suggestions in serious journals on the other side of the Atlantic that enormous amounts of research are being carried out by the Americans—and, I surmise, by the Russians and other potential enemies—into the matter. I hope that the Minister will give some assurances on these important points either in his wind-up speech tonight or in any correspondence that he might address to me.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not join in the ritual criticism of the Secretary of State for Defence's speech at Blackpool, other than to say that I think on reflection the right hon. Gentleman might consider that it was a rather fickle speech to make. I believe that most of his colleagues, privately, consider its contents to have been immature.
  I want to address a matter that relates to the European Union, and I would ask the Minister to consider this point. It seems to me that membership of the EU provides an implied security guarantee. I genuinely want to know the Government's view on that proposition. It seems inconceivable to me that a member state of the EU could alone be subjected to external aggression, as that would not be tolerated by other members. It would break up the Union and frustrate commerce and the markets, as well as affecting the concept of European citizenship which, while one may or may not agree with it, is nevertheless an enshrined concept.
  Membership of the European Union must mean that external aggression on one member state would be intolerable to the rest of the EU. I wonder if the Minister could state whether he concurs with that view? I raised this matter with a senior official at NATO recently who, to my surprise, took a different view. I was genuinely surprised by his opinion, and therefore consider that the matter needs to be clarified.
  I wish to humbly, but proudly, speak on behalf of the Visegrad group of countries which aspire to membership of the west. I shall speak in particular, although not exclusively, about Poland in which I take a keen interest. I believe that that country should have its rights recognised by the UK and other western countries. I believe that Poland is currently being unfairly neglected.
  Reference was made during the tributes to Lord Home yesterday, by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to the fact that he thought that Poland had been dreadfully treated by successive Governments. In 1940, Winston Churchill said,
  "The gratitude of every home in our island, in the Empire and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by the odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of this war by their prowess and devotion. Never before in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
  About 17 per cent. of those "few" were Polish or Czech-Slovak pilots. I agree with Churchill that the battle of Britain was pivotal in the maintenance and defence of

  227
  parliamentary democracy in this country and elsewhere. With that in mind, it is not inappropriate for me to draw attention to the fact that I believe that we have a moral obligation to those countries, albeit 50 years on. We have not dealt with those countries properly.
  In the half-century from 1945, we said constantly to the countries of central Europe, "Look over the wall. Look how wonderful capitalism and democracy are." If some of our propaganda was to be believed, one would have thought that in the west the sun always shone and the rain never fell. After communism collapsed and the wall came down, they asked to join our club, but we said, "Hang on a moment." We then produced a load of reasons why we wanted to frustrate those countries' aspirations to be members of both the EU and NATO.
  It is blatantly dishonest and shameful for us in the west to be frustrating the legitimate aspirations of those countries in central Europe which wish to join both NATO and the EU for a variety of reasons, one of which is the security guarantees provided by membership. Let us look at the excuses advanced for frustrating the admission of the Visegrad group of countries, and Poland in particular, into NATO. The first is the need for interoperability which, in simple terms, means that their bullets do not fit our muskets. There is more to it than that, but that is the broad excuse.
  The second reason is the political dimension in the countries. It is suggested that the west is not certain that there is democratic-control of the military and that we are worried about the generals. That is an offensive argument, particularly in relation to Poland. A distinguished diplomat to whom I spoke recently said, "You have to see the posture of the generals at the war memorial in relation to the Minister of Defence." I would have thought that we would need a more sophisticated judgment than that. After all, there have been problems in the west with regard to the political accountability of the security services. I remember Watergate and the Elsberg papers, and there is presently a problem in Belgium about helicopters. We are not all whiter than white. There are established democracies now in Poland, the Czech republic, Hungary and Slovakia and, while I concede that there are problems, the so-called political considerations against their admission are bogus.
  The political arguments and the question of interoperability were never raised when it came to Spain's accession into NATO. An abundance of Spanish generals at the time had been brought up as part of the Falangist tradition, but we decided that it was appropriate for Spain to be brought in. That was quite right, as I think that membership of NATO was one of the factors which led to the maintenance of constitutional democracy in Spain at the time of the abortive coup. I think that membership of NATO buttresses democracy, rather than frustrates it.
  The real reason for delaying the accession of these countries—this is what makes me so angry—is that we are frightened of offending Russia. I do not agree with that, but it is a legitimate subject for us to debate, while the other reasons offered are bogus. Let us look at the question of Russia. In 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill said:
  "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across Europe, behind which we must refer to it as the Soviet sphere."
  Reluctantly, we must accept that there was a Soviet sphere. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and people elsewhere in western Europe now acquiesce in a
  228
  Russian sphere of influence, or almost a Russian veto over the development of the legitimate aspirations of the parliamentary democracies in Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak republics. That is wholly disgraceful.
  If hon. Members cannot be persuaded of the moral arguments for the early admission of those countries to NATO, I must say that naked self-interest dictates that Poland should come in. One need only get a school atlas to see its strategic location on the Baltic to the east of Germany. It has a large land mass, and a population of 40 million people. It has some of the best and most sophisticated armed forces in the countries of the former Warsaw pact.
  Poland has no minority problems. I notice that the Select Committee on Defence has suggested that there are such problems. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Of all the countries in Europe, Poland probably has the fewest minority problems. We should reflect on that, and I hope that the Minister will respond to my question regarding the implied security guarantee that comes from membership of the EU.
  I am deeply concerned that there are only 12 fluent Russian speakers in NATO's headquarters. That is breathtaking. We are spending money in our defence review on teaching people in central and eastern Europe to speak English, and I applaud that. We ought to spend some greenbacks on enabling our own officers and NATO diplomats to speak, understand and communicate with the Russians. That is probably the best contribution we could make.
  I am mindful of the problems of Russia, and I want to be sensitive towards the subject. In that same speech in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill went on to say:
  "I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people … There was deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain … towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships."
  That is absolutely right, but we do not do it by giving them a right of veto. That is a sign of weakness and foolishness. It is foolhardy in the extreme. It is not in the Russians' best long-term interests, or ours, at a time when things are unhappily decaying in Russia.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful to be called, even as a tail-end Charlie in this two-day debate. In the few minutes that I have, I should like to go back to where we began the debate—with discussion of the notorious speech by the Defence Secretary last week in Blackpool. I wish to discuss the Europhobic tone of that speech. The reality of contemporary defence thinking is precisely the opposite of the direction in which the Defence Secretary seems to want the United Kingdom to go. The reality is that no serious person can contemplate Britain's defence needs today without concluding that, far from Europhobia, what we need is ever closer collaboration and co-operation in Europe, indeed perhaps integration in some areas, if that would produce practical, concrete benefits.
  If the reasons for the need for co-operation have escaped the Defence Secretary, they can put up with some repeating, although more than one hon. Member has already made similar points in the past two days. There is first and foremost the increasing pressure on defence budgets. Electorates are increasingly unhappy with high

  229
  defence spending in the aftermath of the cold war. They want to see some evidence of the peace dividend that we were all promised. That puts severe pressure on Governments to reduce or constrain defence budgets.
  At the same time, the costs of defence procurement are increasing astronomically. The costs of research, development, manufacturing, and purchasing equipment in every field are skyrocketing because ever more sophisticated technology is now available. It is clear that we cannot opt out of those costs because we must keep abreast with developments, especially as our forces become numerically smaller. They must have the punch to carry out the job that we ask them to do.
  For a country the size of the United States, with its economies of scale, those financial pressures are just about manageable. For the European nation states, however, the pressures have become intolerable. The fiscal crisis point has now been reached. That has been clear from debates in the House in the past couple of years in which we have discussed cuts in defence expenditure. The sooner we admit that we are at this crisis point and face up to the consequences of it, the better.
  There are only two responses to the fiscal crisis which now faces defence establishments across Europe. One is to give up the unequal struggle and accept a second-rate future of fewer items of increasingly inferior equipment for ever smaller forces. I do not believe that we should go down that road. We have a duty to our service men when we ask them to endanger their lives on their country's behalf to provide them with the best equipment and support possible.
  So the only right answer to the financial crisis which is pressing on defence budgets is ever closer co-operation within Europe. We have to extend and deepen existing methods for planning, developing and purchasing jointly the best equipment possible for the armies of Europe. We must also, as a consequence, but also on its own merits, co-operate ever more closely in matters such as training, military doctrine and defence policy. That is truly the only sensible way forward. Indeed, it is already happening to an ever greater degree. That is why the Defence Secretary's speech last week was not only embarrassing but utterly empty of content. All the trends are going precisely in the opposite direction to the one in which the Defence Secretary urged us.
  The pressures for European co-operation are not only financial and economic. There is also a political and strategic need for closer European action. We have seen over the summer a resurgence of American diplomatic involvement and presence in European security matters in the former Yugoslavia. Thank God for it. It is to our collective shame as Europeans that we should have to look to the Americans not merely for military muscle but, I am sorry to say, for moral leadership in responding to the holocaust which has consumed a quarter of a million lives in the past four years in Europe.
  There was no passage more empty in the Defence Secretary's speech last week in Blackpool than his vainglorious boast that
  "we taught the Bosnian Serb generals that the slaughter of civilians will not go unpunished."
  It is clear that he has a short and selective memory. What about the slaughtered civilians of Vukovar at the beginning of the conflict? What about the civilians of
  230
  Dubrovnik, of Omarska, of Srebrenica and Zepa? At each and every act of slaughter there was invariably a British Minister on hand openly and without apology washing his hands of any responsibility whatever. British Foreign Office and Defence Ministers repeatedly dismissed air strikes as ineffective and claimed that it would need hundreds of thousands of NATO troops to turn the military tide in Bosnia. It was a junior Foreign Office Minister who infamously flew to Sarajevo in 1992 to tell them that there was no seventh cavalry coming over the hill.
  Four abject years of European appeasement led by this Tory Government cannot be absolved by one summer of American-led resolution. However, this belated American involvement should not blind us to the long-term trend, which is for Americans to become less and less inclined to be involved in European security matters to the same extent and more and more impatient with Europe's failure to deal with its own security problems.
  Europe is rich. The European Union has a gross national product comparable to that of the United States. We have a bigger population. Indeed, we have more people serving in our armed forces than the United States. Of course, many of those people are conscripts, but many of them are regulars. According to the latest edition of The Military Balance published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Britain, France and Germany have between them 340,000 regular soldiers—not conscripts but regular soldiers. If one takes the regular armies of all the European states that are also members of NATO, which includes Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Portugal, the total number of regular soldiers serving in the European Union is 490,000. That compares with the American regular army of 525,000. Although it is smaller, it is not so much smaller that it would not have an impact if it acted in a more cohesive, planned and co-ordinated way.
  We have a duty to look after our security interests to a greater extent if we are capable of doing so. Defence dependency is a vice just as much as the welfare dependency that Conservative Members always talk about. As Europeans, we must get together and co-operate. The Maastricht treaty already commits us to precisely that. Article B commits the European Union to framing a common defence policy. The Government have signed up to that treaty and it is crazy to begin to draw back now. I agree with my Front-Bench colleagues—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
  8.59 pm
  Dr. John Reid: That was a great note for my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to finish on, and it has been the unanimous verdict of most Opposition Members who have spoken.
  This has not exactly been an all-ticket game, but the quality of the contributions has made up for that. Anyone who missed the debate missed something special: to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) impersonate Winston Churchill so well in a cockney accent was worth coming for alone.
  I take this opportunity to welcome the new Minister for Defence Procurement to his post. It is fair to say that, in his relatively short period in post, his predecessor showed that he had some standing in the House because he

  231
  recognised the strategic importance of the British defence industry. To some extent, we were sorry to see him go as he brought a great deal of common sense to discussion of the defence industry. Despite that common sense, he somehow managed to be promoted to the Cabinet. We shall miss him, but we trust that his successor will follow where he left off. I shall comment on the Minister for the Armed Forces later.
  Tonight's debate has been not just about the 1995 defence estimates but an opportunity to examine the last five years of fairly dramatic change in the Government's performance. As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, during that quinquennium there has been a number of dramatic changes and challenges. First, the nature of the perceived threat changed radically away from the conventionally defined threat of intention and capability, which was obvious when we cast our eyes eastward, to a more complex series of risks—a plethora of risks—part of which arose because of the decline of the former Soviet Union.
  Secondly, the demise of the Soviet Union seriously affected the conceptual framework and the operational premises on which major international institutions had long been based. For instance, it initially left NATO without an obvious raison d'être. On a global level, it left the United States as the only real super-power in the United Nations. Thirdly, those changes coincided with, and were symbiotically related to, changes or proposed changes in European defence architecture—a subject that obviously bores the Defence Secretary, who constantly refers to it as "theology". Apparently, it interests him only when it is a platform for attacking those wicked foreigners. Finally, there were increasing pressures on the defence budget for domestic and internal reasons. The Government's fiscal incompetence caused them to scurry around looking for cuts in any budget, and defence was regarded as an easy option.
  Before I wind up the debate, I wish to comment on the individual issues that have been raised and also on the strategic issues that we feel are important. As I have already outlined, the challenges have been great. We admit at the start that they would not have been an easy task for any Government. Unfortunately, for the most part the Government have failed miserably to rise to that challenge. Whereas foresight, clarity, strategy and long-term stability should have been their objectives, they have produced incoherence and short-termism. They have been constantly reactive to the course of events rather than proactive in shaping events. The result has been, for the most part, muddle and incoherence.
  Only this week, we had another prime example of the manner in which the Government have got us all into a muddle. We heard that our infantry regiments were grossly undermanned. The shortfall—perhaps we will have this confirmed tonight—is to be made up by drafting in the Gurkhas, a point made by several hon. Members.
  I have the highest respect for the Gurkhas. I had the opportunity to spend some time in jungle training with them in Belize some years ago through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which I again recommend to anyone who would like to undertake it to give them some idea of the ethos and spirit of the armed forces. I am sure that if the Secretary of State for Defence were to put in a late application he would be welcomed with open arms. [Interruption.] On reflection, I would not wish that on the
  232
  Gurkhas; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has already left. After all, they are not Europeans, so he might get along with them.
  It really does take a bunch of geniuses—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to his "Front Bunch"—to contrive a situation where the Ministry of Defence has just got rid of 111,000 personnel, 42,000 of them soldiers, and end up short of soldiers. And it takes a peculiar sort of genius when we have 3 million unemployed in Britain to decide to make up the shortfall by recruiting people in Nepal.
  The Government do not see the irony of the muddle they have got into or the logic of their position. They have spent the past five years denying that the infantry is overstretched; now they are shouting publicly that the infantry is undermanned. They do not have the mental capacity to put the two facts together. Let me help the new Minister with this great intellectual problem. I want to make it easy for him and to try to be helpful. Will he say after me, "If the infantry are under strength in numbers in relation to tasks, they must by definition be overstretched in tasks relative to numbers." I challenge the Minister to repeat that. I will give him a copy of the speech and he can study it overnight. It is nice to have been vindicated on that point.
  There are some things in the Government's approach that we welcome. We welcome the increase in the awards to holders of the Victoria Cross. I shall not be churlish and say that it is not overgenerous because, after all, past Labour and Tory Governments have failed to deal with the matter.
  We welcome moves toward joint working, the purple arrangements already mentioned by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. We also welcome the announcement tonight on Rosyth and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) for all the work that she has done on that.
  We especially welcome what is now referred to as the long-range rapid reaction force, which was announced in Blackpool last week by the Secretary of State for Defence. We welcome it but wonder whether it is the same one as was announced in July in the House of Commons and whether it is a different long-range rapid reaction force from that which was envisaged 12 months ago in the last debate? If it is the same one, I am very impressed. To manage to deploy that announcement all the way from Westminster to Blackpool in only '12 months is a credit to the logistics corps in the MOD. If they continue at the same rate, I have worked out that they will able to announce its establishment again next year in Edinburgh or in the north of Scotland, and by God, that will frighten the earth out of our enemies.
  The hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) may agree with me and many Labour Members that the level of contractorisation is worrying. Recently, I was down at RAF Valley. We take a pragmatic approach to the matter but would urge two elements of caution. Remember not to watch the minutes and lose the hours. A private contractor used, for instance, on maintenance of RAF aircraft may be able to put in a bid lower than can the MOD precisely because he is recruiting trained personnel who have been made redundant by the MOD. Five years down the road, if the private company has to budget for

  233
  bringing in apprentices and if it cannot get them from the RAF, either the quote will go through the roof or we shall be left with a crisis.
  My second point on contractorisation is that it is not sensible to understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I am glad that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces spoke with pride about the esprit de corps in the armed units. It is not an abstract concept of Queen and country that causes a squaddie at the bottom of Mount Longdon, having yomped for 16 hours, to go out freezing and to try to take that mountain from Argentines sitting on the top with night sights when he does not have any: it is the fact that he does not want to let down his mates, his family and his regiment. I ask the Government please not to allow the privatisation of units in the British armed forces ever to go in a direction that begins to undermine that morale.
  Having welcomed a number of issues, I must say that the most current issue on which we separate from the Government is their attitude towards nuclear disarmament. I know that many Conservative Members wished to stand up tonight and to say how proud they were to see that the Labour party had put forward a concrete series of proposals within the context of a multilateral position towards nuclear disarmament. Time, however, obviously prevented any of them from having the opportunity to make that gracious gesture tonight.
  We should still make it clear that we are different from the Government. On nuclear testing, we have long made plain our view that with the advent of computer simulation, nuclear testing is not necessary to secure the safety of our nuclear weapons. The Government obstinately refused to admit that until, basically, a moratorium was introduced by President Clinton. Is it not funny how often this Government suddenly discover a principled position when ordered to do so by the United States? Their reluctance to take such a position, just like their reluctance to criticise the French over nuclear tests, will on its own, even without the help of the Secretary of State of Defence at Blackpool, help to isolate us from the rest of the civilised world.
  It is noticeable in terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that many countries that supported the decision did so reluctantly and were deeply critical of the nuclear weapons states. Three of our allies refused to sign a joint European Union position because they were not satisfied with the record of Britain and France in fulfilling article VI treaty obligations to pursue disarmament. The future credibility and effectiveness of the NPT will be undermined unless this Government and one or two others start to deal with honour and pragmatism in pursuit of the nuclear-free world which the Government say, for the first time this year in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", they believe in and wish to pursue.
  One item that has not been mentioned in many debates but which was, I am glad to say, mentioned tonight by the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) is the cadet forces. Our cadet forces are rarely mentioned. Let us make it plain to everyone that they are not merely a means of recruitment for the armed forces. They fulfil a valuable and much-needed function in youth leadership and allow thousands of young people to develop character and leadership skills.
  234
  My wife and I recently had the opportunity to spend some time, courtesy of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—I thank him for this—on what was called a challenge and adventure weekend. It was not an official cadets' activity. It involved groups of young people from deprived backgrounds, inner-city kids, who were at risk. They were not at risk in terms of the probation service; they were not kids who had offended. They were brought for the first time to the countryside—to canoeing, command tasks and challenge leadership. They were kids who had never before been given the opportunity to develop the potential within them. In many cases, they had been told by their teachers, by their background or by their families that there was nothing in them. The cadets are a much under-used asset.
  Incidentally, for those who take an interest in racial and ethnic matters, many of the young people were from Asian backgrounds. They were boys and girls whose parents, of Muslim persuasion, were allowing them to go to the weekend, which they would not normally do, because the British Army was running it. There are thousands of young folk whose potential has been confined by circumstance or by background. The cadets are a grossly under-utilised national facility which I hope, if Labour is elected, we shall develop to an even greater extent as part of a new offer to a new generation.
  I mentioned earlier the challenges that have faced the Government. Now that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has arrived—I have already welcomed the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—I take pleasure in welcoming the fart, if it is not too embarrassing for him, that he stayed at his post when all others were deserting the defence team. I say that because I believe that his continued presence will offer at least some hope to many in the armed forces who were verging on despair even before last Tuesday.
  I know from many meetings throughout the country that the Minister's dedication and commitment and his persona—despite some of his rather aggressive tendencies towards us tonight—are held in deep respect. He has managed not only to be held in respect by the armed forces but, something which I thought was impossible for someone who is a Minister of State for the Armed Forces and a Tory, some of them actually like him as well.
  However, we now have a genuine problem in defence. Of course, none of us likes to deal in personalities—which allows me to talk about the Secretary of State for Defence—but if the Secretary of State continues to make speeches in the way that he did, the persona and the message that is being conveyed will be inseparable.
  Last week in Blackpool we heard of a fairy tale defence world, a sort of fantasy defence league, where Secretaries of State were resolute and resources plentiful, presided over by a new warrior king. Let me place the facts before the House. Before we disagree on our opinion, let us agree on the facts.
  During the last decade the story in defence has been one of almost unparalleled reductions in defence expenditure. As a proportion of national income, the defence budget has fallen from a previous high of 5.8 per cent. to 3.9 per cent. five years ago to 3.3 per cent. It is now scheduled, under the present Government, to fall to 2.9 per cent. They have, and should be given credit for it, in practice carried out the Labour conference resolutions which they have condemned for many years.

  235
  As I have said, the defence budget is scheduled to fall. It means a cut in the procurement budget at the moment of 19 per cent. between 1991 and 1994 alone, while the defence budget will be cut by almost 30 per cent.—111,000 off manpower, 42,000 of them in the Army. They are, by any standards, staggering cuts. Anyone who cares to check what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said last night will see that he confirmed that there are more on the way. That should not surprise any of us.
  The man who inflicted those cuts on the armed forces was not the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He constantly told us that he was fighting against them. We have had 16 defence Ministers. The Government have gone through more Ministers at the front here in order to cut the defence budget by 30 per cent. than Scotland has players in qualifying for the European championships. The cuts were not inflicted by the three Ministers on the Treasury Bench. The man who inflicted them, the man who cheered every regimental closure, was the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—now Secretary of State for Defence. He is not on the Treasury Bench tonight. I do not know where he is. Perhaps he is out having a pint with Jacques Santer. The current Secretary of State for Defence was given a reward of promotion for having slashed the defence budget.
  Perhaps "reward" is the wrong word. The problem and tragedy of the latest reshuffle from the word go is the obvious fact that a once-proud Department of State, particularly prided by the Tories, became a dustbin for the enemies of the Prime Minister. It became the Tory equivalent of the guardhouse. The Secretary of State was to be stuck there and the substantial figure of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces would sit on him, as has obviously happened between last week and this week. The news of the appointment was met with despair. Gone are the days in the Admiralty, the Royal Air Force and the Army when the telegram appeared with the stirring announcement, "Winston is back". Hon. Members may imagine the bemused look of despair which greeted the letter saying, "Polly has been appointed". It does not have the same resonance.
  As if it were not an insult to the armed services, the hero of this story—I have not, so far, mentioned his name—is now trying to use them as a bridgehead into Downing street. Last week, he was on active service in Blackpool. In a speech variously described in a very generous fashion as guff, hyperbole, chauvinism, rabble-rousing, poncing and posturing—I have only checked the quality press, because this is a family show—he managed to demean himself, and to debase his party and the relationship between the armed forces and the Minister. No one really cares what he does to himself and his party, but he will not be forgiven for two things: one was the cheap attempt to exploit the armed forces for party political advantage; the other was the abuse that he heaped on our European allies.
  Let it be known that Opposition Members—and, I believe, the vast majority of Conservative Members—completely dissociate themselves from the vitriol poured on our European defence partners. We pay tribute to those in Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Germany and elsewhere who have stood shoulder to shoulder with this country for the past half century, and our French colleagues who have acted with us on the political wing of NATO and in Bosnia.
  236
  Incidentally, one would think that after three months in post the Secretary of State for Defence would have been told by someone where the headquarters of NATO are, and where the supreme headquarters of the allied powers in Europe are. In case any of the Ministers do not know, it begins with "B". No—not Bradford, but Brussels.
  There was only one consolation to be had from last week's speech. As is obvious from all the comments made on this occasion, no one takes the Secretary of State seriously. It is his own fault.
  Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Reid: I am rather pressed for time.
  It is the Secretary of State's own fault. Here was the hero who tried to commandeer "Who dares wins" as his personal slogan; but this is the hero who, when the challenge for the leadership was issued, sneaked to safety beneath the Cabinet table, daring to emerge only to order 40 more telephone lines—a strategic thought—presumably in order to be able simultaneously to assure up to 40 candidates of his own undying loyalty.
  Here was the warrior who spoke with pride of our armed forces: the man who, from his position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, slashed the defence budget and dictated a reduction in the regiments. Here was the braveheart who told us—this is the moving bit; this is where we get to the peroration—that we had to feel the passion for defence in our hearts, bones and guts. This is the man who refused to join the Army cadets—on aesthetic grounds, if you please. Presumably they did not have enough Christian Dior cap badges.
  It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman approached these matters with the zeal of a convert—the fanaticism sometimes shown by those who have just seen the light on the way to Camberley. I recommend the book that I consulted: it is called "Michael Portillo—The Future of the Right". His political biography has been written before he has arrived in Downing street. I found a marvellous phrase in the book, which is a study of Michael Portillo's development of his view on defence. When reading that phrase, I could not help reminding myself of the stirring words with which the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Blackpool assembled faithful. He said:
  "Anyone, they say, is entitled to change his mind. Not about the defence of Britain, they're not."
  It was, therefore, with some surprise that I read on page 25 of the book:
  "Malcolm Rifkind was the first Tory defence secretary never to have served in any of the armed forces, even as a conscript."
  Then his biographer, a man who had studied his life, added:
  "Michael Portillo may well be the first former conscientious objector to be placed in charge of the nation's defences by a Tory government".
  Yet this former pacifist and conscientious objector now stands up and tells us:
  "Anyone, they say, is entitled to change his mind. Not about the defence of Britain, they're not."
  What I attack is not the right hon. Gentleman's sincerely held beliefs about pacifism, although I have never held them, or his sincerely held conscientious objections, although I have never held them either—what

  237
  I challenge is his right to demand that others should not change their minds and to describe others as wimps and cowards after having held the same views himself.
  Mr. Bill Walker: At what age do young boys join the cadet forces?
  Dr. Reid: If any Labour Member could be done down for believing in Santa Claus, the Conservatives would do it to him. His age does not matter. In any case, he held these views long after he left the cadets—in fact, until he went to Peterhouse—I have taken the trouble to read beyond page 25 of the book. The point is that people are sick and tired of a Tory Cabinet telling them to do as they say and not as they do.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: As the hon. Gentleman is raising this issue with some force, has he asked my right hon. Friend whether the story is actually true, because he has assured me that it is not?
  Dr. Reid: I made the naive assumption that the warrior king who dares would have the guts to come along tonight for his first defence debate and oppose me face to face while I raised the issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Installing telephone lines, perhaps.
  All this could perhaps be excused on the grounds that the Secretary of State, as an hon. Member said last night, may be a sinner but is a sinner who has repented. So the standard apparently is that repentance is fine for those on one side of the House only. Another hon. Member put the speech down to immaturity, and indeed some things can be excused on that ground. After all, the Secretary of State for Defence is under 50, which I suppose qualifies him as a young Conservative.
  There can be no excuse, however, for the right hon. Gentleman's degradation of the concept of patriotism, which has been mentioned by almost every Member who has spoken in the debate, including the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. [Interruption.] I am now honoured to be in the presence of such a man as the Secretary of State for Defence. I was just coming to the end of my speech and discussing patriotism. [Interruption.] I wish the Minister of State would stop briefing the Secretary of State. He fed him his lines all last week; he need not do the same again today.
  I do not question the depth and sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's patriotism—no one in the House does—what I question is the form that his patriotism takes. Patriotism is not naked chauvinism. It is not narrow nationalism. When it is reduced to a mere dislike of foreigners, it is baseless—
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Read the speech.
  Dr. Reid: I have been reading it. I am quite prepared, unscripted, to take on the Secretary of State in debate anywhere, any time. He did not have the courtesy or the guts to turn up to hear my accusations, so he should not come in now and start shouting from a sedentary position.
  Patriotism is a function of national unity, not an instrument of national division. It is not a monopoly of any party, social class or group. The next time, therefore, that the Secretary of State makes a speech in which he recalls the veterans, he should remember that people in
  238
  here recall the veterans as well. On both sides of the House, we recall those who came from the dank jungles of Borneo, who burned in the searing deserts, and who sailed and sometimes drowned in the icy waters of the north Atlantic, and we recall them because we all have personal as well as patriotic reasons.
  I recall Arromanches and Caen. I recall Nijmegen because my father fought there for this country with the Guards Armoured Division. I recall the Sicily landings, where his oldest brother died, and the invasion of France, where his youngest brother gave his life for this country. So do not tell us about patriotism or claim it as a monopoly: it belongs to all of us and everyone in the House has their own reason for remembering.
  We remember, too, the forgotten army of everyone's speeches here. We have remembered those who died, but we have forgotten the ones who came home, the millions of service men and women who came back to this country after the war, who understood Churchill's caveat, if they had never understood it before, that there is no use ruling the waves abroad if one cannot flush out the sewers at home. They were determined that they would act together to construct for themselves, their children and their grandchildren a country that was marked by fairness, opportunity, decency and social justice, that they would construct together, all of them, all social classes, one nation bound together by the very rich diversity of the nation itself, united together in peace, in just the same way as they had been in adversity. That was their patriotic pledge and, if no one else in the House wishes to fulfil it, this party stands ready to fulfil it for their grandchildren.
  9.31 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): We have just heard a generally enjoyable speech from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). It was based partly on a book that was untrue, but let that pass. It was also rather rabble-rousing, to take a phrase from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). It certainly seemed to have done the trick of the rousing at any rate, but there is one point that I must draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention: the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is not in a place that begins with a "B". It is in a place that begins with an "M" and it is not Motherwell; it is Mons.
  Dr. Reid: I am sorry, but if the Minister checks he will find that the headquarters Of NATO is in Brussels. The headquarters of SHAPE—Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe—is in Mons. If he has enough time, I can run him through a better briefing than the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have thoroughly enjoyed today's debate. I found it better than yesterday's debate. We have had some thoughtful and constructive speeches. It is the first defence debate that I have had the privilege of answering and I feel lucky and proud to be able to do so.
  We had several important speeches. One of them was from my hon. Friend the Member Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), to whom I am grateful for his remarks about the Tornado and about transport crews. I agreed with much of what he said about Eurofighter 2000 and air cadets.
  I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North that the cadets help young people to develop qualities of good citizenship. They are an

  239
  important element of the country's voluntary youth movement and the Government recognise the enormously important role that they play in society. My hon. Friend will understand, however, that the cadets cannot be immune from the proposals for increased efficiency which the whole of the armed forces have. We have asked the cadet forces to consider how that might be achieved, but no decisions have been taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) made a constructive speech and I am grateful for much of what he said, not least his comments about our equipment programme. His comments about overstretch will be listened to carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) talked about the shortfall in recruitment. I can confirm that we are considering using Gurkhas to fill shortfalls in other areas of the Army. No decisions have been made. We arc also looking at other ways of dealing with the shortfalls such as a vigorous recruitment campaign and the introduction of a re-engagement bounty.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Minister give a commitment that if the Gurkhas are to be used in the way that he envisages, they will receive their full pension entitlement rather than the shortfall of pension that they receive now?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: As I have said, no decisions have been made and, in any event, the difficulties that can arise as a result of using Gurkhas have been raised by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East and I agree with much of what he said.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who made a distinguished and courageous speech about homosexuality in the armed forces. It is well known that my Department takes the view that homosexuality is incompatible with achieving the aims of the armed forces as it can undermine the good order and discipline that are essential for military effectiveness. This policy is not a matter of moral judgment but stems from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexual orientation on the unique circumstances of military life and, therefore, on combat effectiveness. The policy was supported by the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill in 1991.
  Earlier in the year, as the House will be aware, the High Court ruled on the exclusion of homosexuals from the armed forces. It confirmed that the policy was lawful and that any decision on its future must properly rest with Parliament. The High Court urged that the policy should be reviewed to take account of changing social attitudes and the experience of other countries where homosexuals are allowed to serve in the armed forces. In the light of that judgment, we decided to conduct the internal assessment of our policy, which is currently under way.
  The aim of the assessment is to present a paper of objective evidence to the Select Committee considering the forthcoming armed forces Bill in order to assist in any deliberations on the subject. The assessment team is considering advice given to Ministers by senior military advisors as well as consulting service personnel of all
  240
  ranks. It is also examining the full range of arguments put in the High Court together with the situation in the armed forces of other countries.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and I thank him for his comments. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the review will be prepared to receive information from those of us not inside the Ministry of Defence? Will it be possible for an organisation such as Stonewall or even for me to make representations during the internal review?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: As I have told the House, it is an internal review but my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is being most helpful and I welcome Her Majesty's Government's approach. It must be right for the Parliament at Westminster, after the next election, to make a decision on matters of such importance to our armed forces and to our country. Can my hon. Friend give an undertaking that it will be the Parliament at Westminster, during the passage of the armed forces Bill in the next Parliament, which will make a decision and that it will not be at the behest of the European Court if the matter comes within the jurisdiction of that body?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: As I have said, it is for the Select Committee on that Bill to consider.
  As always, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a speech that I found fascinating. Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), he referred to the independence of our nuclear deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent and under the absolute control of Her Majesty's Government. The deterrent is committed to NATO except when supreme national interests require and we are not dependent on the United States to fire our nuclear weapons.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), in what I though was a slightly unbalanced speech, referred to the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. Following the decision to locate the Joint Services Staff college at Camberley in 1997, a marketing campaign has been in hand to seek an appropriate future use for the site by non-Government tenants. We are seeking imaginative but appropriate uses, which must be fitting to the history and architecture of the site and which will allow Greenwich to be appreciated by a wider audience.
  I fully appreciate the importance of the site—a point that the hon. Gentleman rightly made. The site will remain Crown property. The marketing campaign will be concluded on 15 November, but the final decision will not be made until the middle of next year. The Defence School of Languages remains my Department's preferred occupant for the site if no other suitable non-Government tenant can be found.
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) asked about the launch of the landing platform helicopter—the LPH. When it was launched on 11 November it sustained minor damage when the forward launch cradle collapsed prematurely. Repair of the damage is not expected to impact significantly on the programme.
  One speech that I must deal with before moving on is that of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) yesterday. He asked me to meet a deputation about

  241
  Raytheon, which I am happy to do. Perhaps at the same time we could discuss the other important issues that he raised in his speech.
  The debate has given the House an opportunity to consider our defence strategy at a time of significant change. The Government are committed to maintaining the high quality, capable and properly equipped forces that we need to underpin our defence and foreign policy aims. In an age increasingly dominated by technology, proper equipment is vital. I want to take this opportunity to say something about our procurement policy, which is the key to ensuring that we get the best equipment and the best value for money from the defence budget.
  Before doing that, I must do what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces promised earlier today and refer to Rosyth. Following our decision that Rosyth should become a support establishment, we have been actively seeking to market the core industrial naval base area as a single entity for commercial port and related activities. A detailed assessment of the bids received is now taking place. I am pleased to tell the House that the Rosyth 2000 consortium has emerged as our preferred tenderer to progress the sale of the naval base by the end of March 1996. The consortium consists of the Bank of Scotland, Forth Ports plc, Scottish Power plc and the Babcock International group, with Evans of Leeds as an associated partner.
  I am confident that the consortium has a credible business plan for the development of the naval base area and the expertise and financial resources to sustain regeneration in the longer term. It is prepared to make a substantial investment in Rosyth, with potential opportunities for the creation of new jobs. The new injection of capital will complement the investment that the Ministry of Defence has made in Rosyth over many years. I am satisfied that the Rosyth 2000 bid represents a fair return to the taxpayer for the sale of the site. Negotiations continue with Babcock International over the proposed sale of the adjacent dockyard. Our aim is to conclude those negotiations as soon as possible, but a decision on whether that transaction should proceed has not yet been made.
  Ms Rachel Squire: I thank the Minister for giving some good news to Rosyth and to Scotland and for recognising the importance of planned economic regeneration to an area that is so devastated by defence cuts.
  After 90 years of operation as a naval base, will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to all the naval personnel and civilian employees who have served this country so loyally and so well at Rosyth?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I will indeed. I also pay 'tribute to the hon. Lady for the close interest which she has taken in the naval base.
  Since the mid-1980s, our policy has been to achieve value for money through the use of competition wherever practicable. My Department is the United Kingdom industry's largest single customer and we must ensure that we maintain a proper commercial relationship with our suppliers. The return of large sections of the defence industry to private ownership in the 1980s helped, as has our willingness to open up our requirements more widely to overseas suppliers, but competition has been the key.
  242
  The policy has produced real improvement for the taxpayer and for the armed forces. We estimate that competition has reduced the costs of procurement by more than £1 billion a year for equivalent output. It has given us a UK defence industry which is better placed to take on its competitors worldwide and win, as defence export orders averaging £4.5 billion a year over the past five years demonstrate. That has helped industry through the undoubtedly painful transition to the post-cold war world, but it has also allowed us to concentrate our resources on enhancing the capabilities of our front-line forces.
  Of course not all of our current industrial capabilities are strategic. National self-sufficiency in armaments is not achievable.
  Mr. John Denham: I would like to ask a question before the Minister moves off the point about competition policy. If competition policy is so important, will he reconsider the Government's decision to exclude Vosper Thorneycroft from the right to bid for at least part of the refit work on Sandown class minehunters—vessels originally built by that warship yard? At the moment, the yard is not entitled to bid for the work and therefore the Government will not know the realistic price for that work.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman again fights valiantly for his constituency. I shall obviously consider the point that he raises, but I do not think that it would be in the long-term interests of competition to agree with his immediate point. We need to identify which defence industrial capabilities we would prefer to sustain in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that we do not, perhaps for lack of proper thought, lose those elements important to the future health of the defence industrial sector.
  We are part of a long-standing and close alliance. A degree of military interdependence has been a reality for decades. There is not a single major item of defence equipment in our infantry which is wholly British in origin. Not even the United States can realistically achieve total self-sufficiency in defence equipment.
  We already take industrial factors into account in our procurement decisions—for example in offset or in industrial participation proposals. We do not believe that the size and shape of the UK defence industry should be primarily determined by Government. In that respect I completely disagree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield who said:
  "Do not tell me that we cannot diversify".
  Nobody has told him that we cannot diversify. But we do tell him that Governments are not well placed to direct that diversification. How industry is structured and what products it makes should be determined by commercial decisions within the market, subject of course to national and European regulatory authorities.
  Our overriding aim must be to ensure that our armed forces are provided with the equipment which they need to conduct the whole range of missions that they face. In the changed security environment since the end of the cold war, it is less easy to predict where our armed forces will be deployed, who our allies will be, and what will be the capability of our probable opponents. Our forces need to be prepared and equipped to take on a wide array of tasks covering both combat and other operations other than war.

  243
  There has been an increase in the number of operations being undertaken, and that higher level of activity looks set to continue. Flexibility, mobility, combat power and utility will be key factors in determining force structures and equipment provision, and ensuring that we have the right military capability in both peace and war. We will continue to keep under review the commitments faced by our armed forces, the capabilities that they require and the resources available so that we can ensure that the services are equipped for their job and that we achieve best value for money in providing the necessary equipment.
  While the overall defence budget is reducing in size, we have succeeded in reducing the costs of supporting the front line and cutting administration and headquarters costs. That has enabled us to plan on increasing the amount spent on equipment as a proportion of the total. Part of that success has been due to the defence costs study and we are on track for the implementation dates and the savings. We are confident that the £720 million a year of DCS-related savings that we have so far identified for 1996–97 will rise to more than £1 billion a year by the end of the decade. That is a remarkable achievement. The aim of the exercise was to ensure that every £1 spent on defence contributes directly or indirectly to our fighting capability. The DCS savings have enabled us to enhance our front line strength and contributed towards the excellent shape of our forward equipment programme.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we have ordered conventionally armed Tomahawk land attack missiles. They will provide a significant addition to our military capability. Also, for the Royal Navy, we placed a main production order for Spearfish torpedoes with GEC Marconi last December. It is the most advanced anti-ship and anti-submarine torpedo in the world and it will replace the Tigerfish torpedo in all Royal Navy submarines.
  We are continuing to modernise our fleet of destroyers and frigates with Type 23s replacing older vessels. We have received and are assessing bids for the design and build of a second batch of the Trafalgar class submarines—
  Mr. Mackinlay: Rabble-rouser.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: You wait. We are in contract negotiations with VSEL for the design and construction of the new landing platform docks for use by the Royal Marines and, looking further ahead, the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995" highlights our plan to introduce the common new generation frigate.
  For the Army, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in July our intention to place a contract with Westland Helicopters for 67 Apache attack helicopters. For the Royal Air Force, the key equipment programme is Eurofighter 2000. We plan to take a production decision next year on this project which is intended to provide the cornerstone of our future air defence capability.
  We announced last December our decision to purchase 25 C130J aircraft. The Hercules was the only new build aircraft available in the required time scale to meet the RAF's urgent operational needs and the contract was signed on 3 March this year. Quick progress is being made and the first aircraft is due to be delivered to the Royal Air Force by June 1997.
  244
  The Government and British industry are working hard with our future large aircraft partners to ensure that our criteria—that it is managed on a commercial basis and meets our requirements on price and specification—are met. We very much hope that the FLA will prove suitable to meet our requirement to replace the balance of the Hercules fleet and other possible longer-term air transport needs from the early part of the next century.
  Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend mentioned—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are going to be disappointed. My hon. Friend mentioned the Hercules C130.J. Can he give us any information about the cost of that aircraft and whether the Royal Air Force will be paying any more for it than the United States air force?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: One of the advantages of our procurement exercises and the foreign sales that we managed to procure is that we are able to tag on to the end of long runs provided by other air forces. I believe that that is precisely the case with the C130Js.
  Our programme is outstanding and is evidence of our commitment to getting the best equipment that we can for the people at the sharp end. It means that we can provide the equipment that our armed forces need, but let us consider for a moment what the Opposition parties have in store for us. I begin with the Liberal Democrats. I listened with interest to yesterday's speech by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I read it again today in Hansard and I must confess that at the end of it I was no clearer about what he wanted than I was at the beginning.
  The Liberal Democrats have not troubled us with an amendment to the motion—presumably in order to leave themselves free to promote different policies in different areas of the country. However, their recent defence history is striking, because theirs is the party that called for a 50 per cent. cut in defence spending one month after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
  Last year, the Liberal Democrats reversed that policy, calling for a comprehensive defence review. This is 1995—new year, new policy. Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East attacked the Labour party for wanting a fundamental defence review—because, he said, it would damage morale. How right he was, but what will next year bring from the Liberal Democrats? We wait with bated breath.
  However, we know what the Labour party wants. It wants to cut defence spending further. After all, where else would it find the money to pay for its spending? There is a limit to the amount that Labour could milk from the taxpayer and run up in credit. As has been said, "You can't trust Labour on defence."
  We know that Labour is not satisfied with what has happened already as a result of the end of the cold war. The estimates that we are debating promise a period of stability for the front line, but we know that that is a promise that the Labour party would not honour, and that stability is not on its agenda—because, "You can't trust Labour on defence."
  The Labour party calls for a full-scale defence review. Although the Liberal Democrats did not bother to table an amendment, the Labour party gave us the pleasure of two. The amendment tabled by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman calls for a review, and to see what that review would produce we need look no further than the amendment tabled by Labour Back Benchers.

  245
  There is something funny about that amendment. Yesterday it looked rather different, because then it was signed by 37 brave and honourable Labour Members who were prepared to stick their heads above the parapet and say what they believed even though that is forbidden in the Labour party at the moment. Today we see only 11 signatories. What are we to think? What has happened to the anti-nuclear 26? Have they all become nuclear overnight?
  What has happened to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who yesterday made a courageous speech against his Front Bench and proudly nodded when asked whether he had signed the amendment? His name is not on the amendment now.
  Mr. Llew Smith rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely think today that what he said yesterday was a load of rubbish? It was, but what has happened to make him think so?
  Mr. Smith rose—
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I know the answer. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was more persuasive last night than even he imagined. When he was winding up the debate not even he thought that the result would be queues of Labour Members outside the Table Office desperate to establish their warlike credentials.
  What are we to say about the 11 brave souls who are left? Clearly their chance of preferment is gone. "For you, the war is over." I salute them, because they, at any rate, are true to their principles, and they have the comfort of knowing that they represent the core of the Labour party.
  What is left is an amendment that could properly be called an iceberg amendment—the tip of the iceberg. It sets out what the Labour party really wants to emerge from its review—not just 11 or even 37 people, but the heart of the Labour party. If 26 of them can suppress their feelings overnight so can 226 of them—because, "You can't trust Labour on defence."
  The amendment says that we should reduce spending to an average of what the other western European countries spend—in other words, cut spending by one third. We also know that Labour wants to scrap Trident, because the amendment says so.
  Labour's problem is that the British people are genuinely interested in the defence of this country. The Labour party's policy on defence is to keep it low-profile. It is not so much a policy as a desperate concern. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will forgive me for suggesting that the low-profile policy may be one of the reasons why he has the job of Opposition defence spokesman, because his name is not exactly household.
  This year was the first year since 1989 that the Labour party conference did not pass a motion calling for defence spending to be slashed by a third. That was because the party did not dare put such a proposal to the vote at the conference because it knew what the result would be. It is not just the British people who cannot trust Labour on defence—not even Labour trusts Labour on defence. The Opposition do not trust themselves. We do not trust them. The people do not trust them. Let us have none of their amendments, none of their policies and none of them.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 301.

  Division No. 215]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dewar, Donald

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dixon, Don

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton, Joe

  Etherington, Bill

  Austin-Walker, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Bayley, Hugh

  Flynn, Paul

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fraser, John

  Benton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galloway, George

  Berry, Roger

  Garrett, John

  Betts, Clive

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blunkett, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Boateng, Paul

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blylh V)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cann, Jamie

  Harvey, Nick

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Church, Judith

  Henderson, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Coffey, Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

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

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Janner, Greville

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  247

  Keen, Alan

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Radice, Giles

  Lewis, Terry

  Randall, Stuart

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Litherland, Robert

  Redmond, Martin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Reid, Dr John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Rendel, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McAllion, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Ian

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCartney, Robert

  Rooney, Terry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKelvey, William

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McMaster, Gordon

  Short, Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maddock, Diana

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Snape, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Spellar, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Maxton, John

  Stott, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Straw, Jack

  Michael, Alun

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Milburn, Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Touhig, Don

  Morley, Elliot

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Watson, Mike

  Mudie, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Winnick, David

  Olner, Bill

  Wise, Audrey

  O'Neill, Martin

  Worthington, Tony

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wray, Jimmy

  Parry, Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pearson, Ian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pike, Peter L

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Stephen Byers.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ashby, David

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Batiste, Spencer

  248

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Eric

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  Gallie, Phil

  Boswell, Tim

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bright Sir Graham

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing North)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burt, Alistair

  Hague, William

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Congdon, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Fit Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  249

  Lloyd, Fit Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lord, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maclean, David

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Madel, Sir David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marlow, Tony

  Spring, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Stephen, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stern, Michael

  Merchant, Piers

  Stewart, Allan

  Mills, Iain

  Streeter, Gary

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sumberg, David

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sykes, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thumham, Peter

  Norris, Steve

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tracey, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Pawsey, James

  Walden, George

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pickles, Eric

  Waller, Gary

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Ward, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Richards, Rod

  Whitney, Ray

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Willetts, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wilshire, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Sackville, Tom

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mr. Simon Burns and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Amendment accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:-
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. David Shaw(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There seems to be
  250
  some intimidation going on. There are gentlemen standing and preventing people from going into the Lobby opposite. They seem to be Labour Whips.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see no intimidation anywhere.
  The House having divided: Ayes 304, Noes 28.

  Division No. 216]

  [10.17 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alexander, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dover, Den

  Ashby, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Elletson, Harold

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evennett, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Faber, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bowis, John

  Forth, Eric

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gallie, Phil

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burt, Alistair

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butcher, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Butler, Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clappison, James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Harvey, Nick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sr John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Couchman, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cran, James

  Heald, Oliver

  251

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Hendry, Charles

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Page, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Paice, James

  Horam, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rendel, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Richards, Rod

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knapman, Roger

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

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

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lidington, David

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Dr Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Maddock, Diana

  Stern, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Stewart, Allan

  Malone, Gerald

  Streeter, Gary

  Mans, Keith

  Sumberg, David

  Marland, Paul

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marlow, Tony

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thomason, Roy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Tracey, Richard

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Tredinnick, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trend, Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  252

  Walden, George

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Willetts, David

  Waller, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Ward, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wolfson, Mark

  Wood, Timothy

  Watts, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Dr. Liam Fox.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Madden, Max

  Austin-Walker, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Marek, Dr John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Mullin, Chris

  Burden, Richard

  Parry, Robert

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Cohen, Harry

  Simpson, Alan

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dafis, Cynog

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Welsh, Andrew

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Wise, Audrey

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Lewis, Terry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Livingstone, Ken

  Mr. Harry Barnes and

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister complimented me on making a courageous speech against nuclear weapons yesterday. I saw that speech not as courageous, but as sensible: I have no ambitions to destroy this earth of ours with nuclear weapons.
  The Minister went on to say, however, that along with 25 of my hon. Friends I had withdrawn my name from the amendment. Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that none of us did so? The confusion seems to have arisen because the Minister does not understand the procedure. The six original signatories are named, as well as five additions—which means that more than 40 people signed the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may help the House if I remind hon. Members that the House's practice is to print only the top six names on a motion or amendment each day when it appears on the Order paper. Below the top six, only new signatories' names are printed on the second and subsequent days.
  Sir Irvine Patnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the House has no concessions or penalties that it can raise, but I find it rather strange that 28 Opposition Members are voting against a three-line Whip—and this is the party that would be king.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Sir George Young be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Michael Jack to be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PROCEDURE
  Ordered,
  That Mrs. Cheryl Gillan be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Robert Atkins be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos 4, 5 and 6.

  AGRICULTURE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Roger Knapman be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. William Powell be added to the Committee.

  Ordered,
  That Sir Nicholas Bonsor be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Keith Mans be added to the Committee.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Sebastian Coe and Mr. Roger Stott be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Highland Communities NHS Trust
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for an opportunity so early in the reconvened Session of Parliament, before the beginning of the new Session next month, to raise an urgent matter—the financial crisis that has struck the Highland Communities NHS trust.
  In August, the trust discovered that it was carrying a potential deficit in the current financial year of £1.8 million, £1 million of which was due to an apparent unallocated sum in its contract with the Highland health board. Health board finance officers and accountants take the view that the sum was not noticed on their purchaser side of the contract, as the total figure involved seemed in line with the previous year. Trust management acknowledged error on its provider side, and in consequence, the then director of finance departed; but the problem has not gone away.
  Sir Russell Johnston: As a result of the mistake, redundancies are likely. Nursing staff are likely to lose jobs. However, the chief executive and chairman are unaffected. Does my hon. Friend think that that is fair?
  Mr. Kennedy: Inevitably, the question of the apportionment of blame will have to go wider than the previous director of finance at the trust. Indeed, I think that it would be wrong in principle if the eventual outcome of the controversy simply established a benchmark—not just in this context, but elsewhere in Scotland—that difficulties run into by management over the operation of their budgets in hospital trusts or community trusts could be dealt with by recourse in the first instance to redundancies at staff and ward level. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to that issue of principle. It would be an extremely damaging precedent if it were set.
  I want to make two immediate observations. First, the eventual agreeing of the contract between the health board and the trust seems to me to have been too long drawn out. That cannot have helped early anticipation of and dealing with potential problems. In my discussions with senior representatives from each side, I have heard criticisms of the other. Accordingly, I repeat my call tonight for an independent assessment of the way contracts are drawn up between the purchaser, the health board, and the provider—the health trust.
  Secondly, there appears to be, as my hon. Friend has just made clear, no disagreement over the morality of the situation. Had these confusions not arisen, that £1 million should and would have gone to the trust. The board has a policy now—I endorse it—of not holding on to budget surpluses until near the end of any given financial year: instead, releasing steadily such sums for specific projects over the course of the year. As such, the bottom line is crystal clear: the money is simply no longer there.
  Last month, the trust identified a hit list of potential cuts and savings, by way of response—what both it and central Government euphemistically label "the recovery plan". Among the possible recovery indices are the

  255
  closure of a ward at the Royal Northern infirmary in Inverness, between 35 and 45 redundancies, as well as a cross-section of smaller items.
  The Minister responsible for health, who will reply to this debate, confirmed his status as euphemist extraordinaire when he wrote to me on 22 September to say:
  "What is recognised and accepted by all concerned is the importance of formulating a plan which maintains the level of quality of service previously provided for patients and that proper systems are put in place to ensure that the need for change is more adequately planned for in the future."
  Quite. The next question, therefore, is: what steps have been taken in that direction so far? On 28 September, on BBC Radio Scotland's "Drive Time" programme, the Minister described these planned service and personnel cuts, along with the parallel difficulties which by then had erupted in the Grampian area, as "minor difficulties". They may seem minor problems to him—
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that two out of 47 trusts in Scotland were having their problems, and that, in the context of the general situation, these matters could be resolved? I shall say why in a few moments.
  Mr. Kennedy: In terms of the arithmetic, the Minister is correct. But these two trusts were at the head of the queue, and became trusts before most others in Scotland, and if I were the Minister I would be worrying that they might be the tip of the iceberg. How many of these difficulties may arise with the other 47 trusts? The time ahead will be difficult, not just for the communities liable to be affected, but for the politicians who will have to deal with the problems during the run-up to the election.
  The difficulties are not viewed locally as minor problems by the patients facing closed wards, or by the health service employees facing redundancy. I want at this point to say a word about the distinct but related problem represented by the closure of ward 3 at Invergordon's county hospital, again with attendant staff redundancies. It too is covered by the trust, although this controversy has been separate.
  On Saturday last, I joined the local march and rally about this matter. It was characteristically well organised by Mrs. Gary MacLennan, the Unison regional officer, and extremely well supported by staff and local community alike. I also pay tribute to the work done by Councillor Isabel Rhind to advance the interests of those in the area on this issue.
  Tonight I ask the Minister to require the trust to halt further moves towards redundancies at the hospital, and to require it to sit down at senior level with staff and union representatives, as well as the health board, to consider a better way forward. I also seek a statement from the Minister that, if required, he will be prepared to meet me and a small representative delegation on this subject.
  Returning to the broader picture of the trust, in the past 24 hours, two significant developments have taken place. Last night, the Minister issued a press statement welcoming the decision in principle by the health board—incidentally, this applies similarly to the position in Grampian—to make additional funds, amounting in the context of the trust to £500,000, available to help ease the trust's plight. Describing this as "very good news", he said that this
  256
  "will ensure that patient care is not affected"
  while the trust works on its recovery plan.
  I appreciate that the new Secretary of State for Scotland is keen to sharpen media awareness of his ministerial team, and to improve its street-fighting capabilities. Equally, I know that, on the day of the Skye bridge opening, the Scottish Office would be glad to trumpet any grain of good news from a Highland perspective. The only problem is that, last night, the Minister was welcoming a decision that had not yet been announced.
  This evening, the general manager of the Highland health board has issued a statement of his own, and I should like to read it in full:
  "To avoid any detriment to either the range of quality of patient care, I am prepared to recommend to the Board that additional finance be provisionally allocated to Highland Communities Trust. Such finance would be for schemes agreed with the Board. It must be recognised that any additional finances for Highland Communities Trust would come from money already earmarked for service maintenance and development in a number of Trusts. This means that the Board would not be in a position to enhance services to the population of the Highlands to the extent intended."
  The sound that one hears there is of teeth being pulled, and understandably so. By his pre-emptive press release last night, the Minister has admitted that he has responsibility here, yet he has so far refused to progress from being a commentator on the scene to being a contributor towards a solution. He is being passive, where we need active participation.
  In conclusion, the Scottish Office should make good the deficit. It should not be squeezed from existing health care provision at local level. 'There should be an independent inquiry into the contract negotiations and finance overviews regionally. That refers also to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made in his intervention.
  Crucially, the requirement on the trust to secure a 6 per cent. net return on its £50 million asset base is proving too great a burden to deliver. At present, it is on line for a return between 3 and 4 per cent. The Minister must accept that for this year, and show flexibility over the next three to four years.
  This sorry tale, I fear, reflects systemic shortcomings in the national health service reforms. Tonight, we can seek only short-term palliatives. The real solution, I suspect, lies in the ballot box.
  10.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate, and on being so generous as to give me plenty of time to reply. Of course, health boards receive their funding from the Scottish Office. We are in constant touch with the health boards, and the management executive gives advice to trusts and health boards in situations of this nature.
  Turning to the specific problem of the Highland Communities NHS trust, we have here a trust whose costs are currently higher than its incomes by 2.85 per cent. approximately—£1.4 million. Let me make it clear that the trust is not bankrupt. It is perfectly able to continue providing a high level of service for the people in its region and to keep paying the salaries and wages of its staff.

  257
  So that the House will be in no doubt, let me repeat that the Government, the health board and the trust are determined to ensure that patient care is not, and will not be, compromised while the trust recovers from its financial difficulties. Furthermore, I wish to pay tribute to the many innovative schemes that the trust has introduced for the benefit of its patients. Those include new facilities for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, and a new drug and alcohol dependency centre. The trust has also begun upgrading Belford hospital in Fort William, as well as completing new community health centres in Gairloch and Dundonnell, and I could continue with other examples.
  Trusts receive the bulk of their income from contracts with the health boards, which in turn receive their funding from the management executive. In 1995–96, the Highland health board received from the management executive a 3.65 per cent. increase in its base allocation compared with 1994–95 against a national average increase of 2.44 per cent. There is therefore no question of the highlands being inequitably treated in the distribution of NHS resources—quite the reverse.
  In examining the trust's financial situation, I should explain that the trust has contract income for 1995–96 of some £48 million, and, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said, when its forecast deficit first came to light, it was projected at £1.8 million.
  In responding to the specific financial points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I should explain that the shortfall arises from a combination of factors. The largest single issue relates to non-recurring developmental moneys being used to finance recurring day-to-day expenditure during the last financial year. In essence, the trust delayed implementing certain developmental measures, and did not fill staff vacancies immediately they arose. That had a knock-on effect into the current financial year.
  In addition, the trust was unable to make the necessary financial planning and accounting adjustments to compensate for the resources being transferred by the health board from the trust to Highland regional council for the care of mentally ill patients under the care in the community programme. The trust has not achieved its cash-releasing efficiency targets for 1994–95 and 1995–96. These efficiency targets are set for all trusts requiring them to generate improvements in efficiency in the way they deliver their services. That is good management practice, which is embraced throughout the private and public sectors.
  I can assure hon. Members that there is simply no question of the Highland health board having retained money not claimed by the Highland Communities trust. The fact is that the trust never had the expectation of the £1 million error quoted in the newspapers as the sum which should have been forthcoming from the health board. It is the imbalance between the trust's expenditure and its anticipated income which is at the root of the problem. The trust had, in effect, managed to contain the problems it faced last year by using non-recurring funding from the health board to fund recurring developments, and the trust is having to meet these recurring costs this year.
  My officials in the management executive have been in regular contact with the trust since it first became clear that the trust was going to be unable to balance its books in the current financial year. The first round of discussions and action which followed identified measures which
  258
  have reduced the shortfall to £1.4 million. Scottish Office officials have earlier today received details of the trust's recovery plan and that is being examined.
  I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, in answer to one of his questions, that flexibility on the 6 per cent. rate of return will certainly be considered in the context of the trust's recovery plan.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I very much welcome that last point. It is a crucial block in this difficulty. In the detailed points being made by the Minister, some of which I have heard before in the discussions I have had with the health board and the trust, he is confirming the point I made. There is a great deal of allegation and counter-allegation going on at regional level in Inverness about who was carrying what forward, who was anticipating what, and who was contracting for what. One would need to be not just an accountant but a psychiatrist to understand all that. Does that not underline the need for a proper outside look at the way in which the discussions and negotiations have been conducted?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is taking me out of sequence, but I will answer him now. I do not see the need for an inquiry into contracting, and I shall say why. Contracting is not an annual event: it is a continual and continuing process. The board and the trust meet regularly to discuss contractual difficulties that may arise. In addition, the management executive is giving advice and will continue to do so on contractual issues, and it will mediate in the event of any dispute. So this is a continuing process. It is not my purpose tonight to apportion blame. I am determined to ensure that patient care does not suffer, and to get properly in place the necessary recovery programme and plan.
  Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, as I want to answer some further points raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.
  Against the background of the trust's financial difficulties, I welcome the recent decision in principle by the Highland health board to make additional funds of £0.5 million available to the trust in the current financial year. That will ensure that patient care is not affected while the trust works to deliver its recovery plan.
  I should explain to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye that these are funds that the board had earmarked for future service development, as he suggested, and that are likely to become available later this year. We were aware from our contact with the Highland health board that, given the circumstances of the trust, the board had it in mind to agree that this funding could be used to assist the trust with its recovery plans. I am sure that this additional resource—and it is additional—will be appreciated by the trust, but it will have to produce a sound and viable financial plan.
  Our officials in the management executive will be keeping in close contact with the trust in the days and weeks ahead, and. together with the health board, will be considering whether there are any other avenues of support available to assist the trust. By that I mean that there is a possibility of further funds being made available by the health board.

  259
  However, we are only halfway through the year, and the trust still has to deliver its financial recovery plan. I will monitor that closely, as will Scottish Office officials. It will remain our top priority to ensure that patient care continues to be delivered to very high standards.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will give way to hon. Members in a moment, but first I want to answer a few more of the points raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. He raised a significant point. He said that he was concerned about the possibility of redundancies arising from the recovery plan. However, the planned reductions across the whole of the trust arise not from the trust's present financial difficulties but from changes in the reshaping of services.
  For example, with the move from long-stay hospitals into care in the community—a policy which is widely recognised to be in the best interests of patients—it is inevitable that adjustments to staffing levels will have to follow, and many trusts across the country are having to plan for those changes. The Highland Communities trust is no different from many other trusts in that regard. Of course, more jobs are being created in the coming year as a result of the care in the community programme, and some staff will have the opportunity to switch to community care posts.
  However, in relation to those planned reductions, I can assure the House that the trust will first be seeking reductions by a process of natural wastage, which will include voluntary early retirements and staff prepared to go under a voluntary scheme. If there are any proposed compulsory redundancies arising from the recovery plan, I would have to be convinced that they are entirely necessary. In the meantime, I will monitor the position and keep it under close consideration.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also, quite properly, questioned the way in which the trust has managed its affairs. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the trust's director of finance to ensure that financial systems and controls meet the requirements of propriety and good financial management.
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the finance director has already resigned, but of course financial accountability is a corporate responsibility of the trust board. Scottish Office officials have met the trust board, both executive and non-executive directors, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the trust board is very concerned about the financial position which has arisen.
  The strength of the trust's recovery plan will be indicative of the extent to which the trust board has addressed the position effectively.
  I assure the House that the Scottish Office, the Highland health board and the Highland communities NHS trust are working hard to ensure that the trust can return to a sound financial base, and that it can do so without any detriment to patient care.
  I am aware of the points made by the hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) about the county hospital in Invergordon, and the Royal Northern infirmary.
  Sir Russell Johnston rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall just deal with this point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  With regard to the proposal to close a ward at the county hospital in Invergordon, my information is that the hospital is under-occupied. I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that there will he no loss of services to patients, but there might be a need to transfer patients from one ward to another in the same hospital. The same applies to the Royal Northern infirmary.
  Sir Russell Johnston: It seems from what the Minister has been saying that he concedes that there has been a major financial bug-up, but is unwilling to allocate any responsibility for it at all in a plethora of words.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The facts speak for themselves. Obviously, matters got into a state of disorder. I specified very clearly at the outset of my remarks that the extent of that disorder is that the trust's costs are currently higher than its income by 2.85 per cent. Relative to its total income, that is not an insurmountable problem, but it needs to be addressed urgently by all those concerned. We are doing that. As I mentioned, an extra £500,000 will enable a substantial step in the direction which is required. We are giving further guidance, and will continue to do so.
  The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye asked about the position of the chairman and the chief executive of the trust. The trust board corporately, and the chairman specifically, are accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland for delivering patient services and meeting the financial targets. The trust board is taking the situation seriously.
  I should go on to make it clear that there is no question—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Ewing: The Minister has said repeatedly that he is going to monitor the situation following the announcement that additional funding will be provided by the Highland health board, which also of course applies to the Grampian area. When he speaks about monitoring, how will he relay to hon. Members who represent those areas and to the public exactly what is happening?
  There is a genuine concern that that money was earmarked for future developments in other trusts. We want to know what will happen to those other proposals. How will the situation be monitored, and how will we he able to tell our people at home exactly what is happening?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady will be well aware that the NHS trusts have been very successful in bringing in innovative measures throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. For example, I was in Glasgow the other day, where 7,000 patients have been treated through day surgery. That is a wholly new concept, and I mention it as one example.
  Of course, the trust cannot get on as quickly with its developmental plans if funding has not been applied with the strict rigours that it should have been. The recovery plan must he put in place with all possible speed. An extra £500,000 has been allocated for this purpose. We believe

  261
  that it will be forthcoming. I have also mentioned that there may be the possibility of further funding, but the trust must get that recovery plan properly in place in a way which will safeguard the interests of patient care and all those concerned.
  There is no question of the NHS being underfunded, nor is there any so-called cash crisis. Such suggestions are nonsense. Gross expenditure on the NHS is Scotland in 1995–96 is planned at £4.3 billion. That is an increase of some £190 million, or 4.6 per cent., over 1994–95, and an increase in real terms of 1.5 per cent. after taking account of movements in pay and prices.
  There are 47 trusts in Scotland, and in the past financial year they not only met but frequently exceeded their targets in delivering an increased amount and quality of health care. That includes meeting their financial targets and staying within their operating budgets. We are only halfway through the current financial year, but I assure the House that the vast majority of trusts are in a healthy financial state, and are delivering an increasing standard of health care for the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: That was apparently true of the trust in question until July; it was only in August that the balloon went up publicly. I have rarely experienced anything so complicated at a constituency level. It depends on whom one speaks to, but well-placed sources—accountants and other finance people—have widely differing views about the extent of the problem, and that is the big worry. Some people say that they do not think that there is any deficit at all. That is why there is so much concern.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks tomorrow, he will see that
  262
  each one will stand the test of time. What is important is that we work out an effective recovery plan. Once that is in place, I shall of course be happy to see the hon. Gentleman and a deputation. However, the recovery plan must be in place first. The hon. Gentleman has made his views and those of his constituents clear, and they will be of assistance.
  Competition between trusts serves to raise the standard of health care, and gives patients and general practitioners real choice. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye expressed concern that trusts were turning former compatriots into competitors, but surely he is not suggesting that inefficiency and poor-quality service should be accepted. The challenge for the trust is to improve efficiency and quality for the benefit of the most important people in the health service—the patients.
  The objective of our reforms is, of course, to put people first, the aim being to provide better health care, improve services to patients and give staff in the NHS greater job satisfaction. Changes have been made in the structure of the service, but the underlying principles of the NHS are the same—services are available to all, paid for out of general taxation and are and will remain free at the point of delivery. There is a great deal to recommend our reforms.
  I look forward to having further discussions with the hon. Gentleman in due course. His comments will be borne in mind. We are absolutely determined to see the recovery plan effectively in place with all possible speed.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Agencies
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the Government's intentions for HMSO and the other agencies for which he is responsible. [37635]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have appointed Coopers and Lybrand to consider urgently the options for the future of HMSO, with a view to privatisation provided that satisfactory arrangements can be made for the future provision of services to Parliament. The future of HMSO has been uncertain for too long and I am anxious to set in place quickly arrangements which will secure the long-term interests of the taxpayer as well as HMSO's staff and customers, among whom Parliament is particularly important. I believe that these interests are most likely to be secured by privatisation of all but a very small part of HMSO. Consultation is under way with the House authorities about the safeguards necessary to ensure the future provision of the services which Parliament receives from HMSO. I shall be making an oral statement to the House as soon as these consultations are sufficiently advanced and we have received advice from our financial advisers and decided on the way forward.

  The Government intend to sell Chessington Computer Centre as a single viable business in a way which will ensure that it retains its reputation for the provision of high quality services to Government Departments and the wider public sector. Freedom from the constraints of operating within Government will make Chessington better able to serve existing customers and to attract new customers in wider markets. I believe that this is the best way to secure the long-term interests of the taxpayer as well as those of the staff and customers of the business. I have appointed KPMG Corporate Finance to assist with the sale of Chessington. Formal expressions of interest for the business will be sought early in the new year.

  I have also appointed Coopers and Lybrand to advise urgently on ways of increasing private sector involvement in the Occupational Health and Safety Agency, Recruitment and Assessment Services, the Central Office of Information and the Civil Service College. My aim is not only to secure savings for the taxpayer, but also to maintain the best interests of the agencies' customers and staff.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel,
  184
  (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36966]

  Mr. John Horam
  The nature of current outsourcing contracts let by my Department and agencies since 1990 with the firms listed is set out in the table. Individual contract values, representing the total anticipated cost of the contracts, have been aggregated to preserve commercial confidentiality. The estimated total value of the contracts is £5,239,149. Further information is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Outsourcing contracts

  (a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti

  Management of project risk. Software services.

  (b) AT & T Istel

  Software, connection and training and line rental. Viewdata information service.

  (d) Sema

  Maintenance and support for hardware.

  (i) BIS

  Training call-off contract.

  (k) ICL

  Support for corporate strategy. Software services. Hardware maintenance (2 contracts).

  (l) Digital

  System maintenance.

  (n)/(o) Siemens/Nixdorf

  Call-off contracts for Personal Computers.

  (q) Logica

  Technical support to review Government Data Network (GDN) security policy.

  Government Telecommunications Network (GTN) Managed Network Services Agreement.

  Open Systems Environment (OSE) advice and profiles (3 contracts).

  Strategic Consultancy services.

  Consultancy support for performance monitoring.

  Technical support to assist Telecommunications staff.

  Central Support Staff audit of GDN billing system.

  Review of GDN security policy.

  IT System supply and support contracts.

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to market test the civil service pension scheme; and if he will make a statement; [37296]

  (2) what provision has been made for in-house bids from civil servants to administer the civil service pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [37295]

  Mr. Horam
  An order will be laid, under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, in the next parliamentary Session to enable Departments to market
  185
  test administration of the civil service pension scheme. I intend to make a further statement on the matter at that stage.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government are responding to the House of Lords Select Committee report on sustainable development, published on 18 July. [37942]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government published their response to the Lords Select Committee report on sustainable development on 12 October. We did so in

  Year(1 April to31 March)

  Fatal injuries

  Non-Fatal major industries (c)

  Over three-day injuries (d)

  Total

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  1991–92

  46

  7

  495

  39

  1,308

  213

  1,849

  259

  1992–93

  45

  6

  525

  49

  1,361

  164

  1,931

  219

  1993–94

  37

  4

  593

  53

  1,246

  142

  1,876

  199

  (a) Agriculture and horticulture sector. (b) Forestry.

  (c) As defined under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations—RIDDOR—but chiefly amputations, serious fractures and other injuries causing hospitalisation.

  (d) An injury causing incapacity for normal work for more than three days and reportable for employed and self-employed persons only.

  Liquid Effluent Treatment Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his departmental ruling on the applicability of the waste management licensing regulations as applied to liquid effluent treatment plants. [36776]

  Mr. Clappison
  On 1 May 1994, the Government brought into force a new waste management licensing system under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. On 25 July 1995, I announced that we had decided to extend from 31 July 1995 to 31 March 1996 the transitional arrangements made for the introduction of certain requirements of the new system. The Waste Management Licensing (Amendment No.2) Regulations 1995 give effect to this decision.

  Whether or not the operation of a liquid effluent treatment plant needs a licence must be determined on the facts of the case. The effect of the 1995 regulations is that, where a licence is necessary, operators of treatment plant will have until 31 March 1996 to apply for a licence.

  In the meantime, we are considering whether a case may be made for the exemption of some treatment plant from licensing. In doing so, it is necessary to have regard to the terms of article 11 of the amended EC framework directive on waste and the need to ensure that waste is treated without causing environmental pollution or harm to human health.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the local authority associations about the area cost adjustment; and if he will make a statement. [37941]
  186
  order that the House should have ample opportunity to consider it before the report is debated on 26 October. Copies of the response have been formally laid before the House and placed in the House Library.

  Farming and Forestry (Accidents)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of recorded accidents in the farming and forestry industry in each of the last three years; and how many have been fatal. [37134]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows the total number of fatal and other accidents in the agriculture and horticulture and forestry sectors reported to all enforcing authorities between 1991–92 and 1993–94.

  Mr. Curry
  I met leading members of the local authority associations on 16 October. The local authority representatives whom I met are considering my proposals for an independent review of the adjustment. The aim would be to establish a method of carrying out the adjustment which commanded the widest degree of acceptance among authorities in all parts of the country, had a sound conceptual basis and was practical to apply.

  I proposed that the review should be steered by a leading academic. It should also have someone knowledgeable about local government finance, nominated by the local authority associations, and someone familiar with central Government processes, nominated by the Secretary of State. Research would be commissioned to assist the review in its work. We would seek a report from the review in June 1996.

  Leisure Activities
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government's response to the Environment Select Committee's report on "The Environmental Impact of Leisure Activities" will be published. [37943]

  Mr. Clappison
  Our response is being published today, as a supplementary memorandum, to the Committee's report on "The Environmental Impact of Leisure Activities".

  We welcome the Committee's report, and we are pleased to note the general thrust of the Committee's findings. We share its view that there is no evidence that tourism and leisure pose a serious, immediate or intrinsic threat to the environment. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the need for effective management to take account of potential impacts. These impacts are most likely to be felt and be best resolved at the local level, taking account both of the diversity of the countryside and the knowledge and experience of local communities.
  187
  We strongly agree with the Committee that the economic benefits which tourism and leisure can bring to rural areas should be more widely recognised. We also welcome the Committee's endorsement of the principles of "green tourism" and their contribution towards securing a sustainable tourism industry.

  We have addressed many of these issues in the context of the rural White Paper, which acknowledges the distinctive nature of the countryside, its value to the nation, and the importance of vibrant local communities.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the security implications of using hire car companies to transport Government Ministers rather than directly employed drivers. [37149]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: Ministers, in the main, are provided with cars and drivers through the Government car service. All GCS drivers are security cleared to an appropriate level.

  During busy periods, the Government car service will sometimes use private companies under contract. In all cases, drivers have the necessary security clearances. Very occasionally, to meet unusual requirement, a private company may be employed which is used so infrequently that security clearances are not justified. In such cases, the involvement of a Minister is not advertised to the company in advance. No substantive security implication therefore arises.

  Renewal Areas
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 471, if he will make a progress statement on the research work being undertaken in renewal areas by Austin Mayhead and Co. Ltd. for his Department. [37477]

  Mr. Clappison
  The research has now been completed and a draft final report is due to be delivered to the Department by Austin Mayhead on 31 October.

  Nuclear Waste Repository, Cumbria
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements have been made for the provision of daily transcripts to be made available to(a) participants and (b) outside interested parties of the proceedings of the public inquiry into the application by UK Nirex to construct a rock characteristics laboratory in connection with its nuclear waste repository development programme which began in September in Cumbria. [36753]

  Mr. Clappison
  The arrangements for the public inquiry into the appeal by UK Nirex Ltd. are matters for the Planning Inspectorate agency and Cumbria county council. I have asked the agency's chief executive to write separately to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Greenfield to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 16 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked the Inspectorate's Chief Executive to answer your question about arrangements for providing transcripts of the inquiry, currently being
  188
  held, into the application by UK Nirex Ltd for a rock characterisation facility at Sellafield. I am replying in the absence of Mr Shepley.
  There is no requirement in the Inquiry Procedure Rules for daily transcripts to be made available, either to participants or to interested parties. The only formal record of the proceedings is the Inspector's report to the Secretary of State which will be issued to the main parties with the decision letter.
  However, I understand that one of the interested parties, the National Anti-Dump Network (NAND) is making daily transcripts. Cumbria County Council has agreed to produce photocopies of these and a limited number are periodically being made available at the inquiry venue. I should stress that this is a purely voluntary arrangement, and that the transcripts will not form part of the formal inquiry documentation to be included in the Inspector's report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an assessment of the operation of the system by which European regional development funds are filtered through to local authorities and other organisations; and what currently available tables he has for take-up of European development funds by the United Kingdom, in percentages, in relation to other member states. [37279]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Grants are decided and offered by Government Departments after a procedure, agreed by a monitoring committee for the area concerned, which includes scoring applications against project selection criteria and consultation with members of the committee, for example in working groups.

  The projects selection criteria have only recently been introduced. I will make an assessment in due course.

  The European Commission's most recent annual report on the implementation of the reform of the structural funds includes tables for commitments and payments for the period 1989–1993. These show that the UK committed all allocations from the European regional development fund. Payments to the UK made by the end of 1993 were 86.8 per cent., 68.1 per cent. and 76.3 per cent. of these commitments for objectives 1, 2 and 5(b) respectively. Payments for the Community as a whole were 86.2 per cent., 71.3 per cent. and 77.0 per cent. Payments can continue until the end of 1995.

  Regional Development Grant
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of total regional development grants in the last five years have been allocated to each English and Welsh county and to Scotland. [35725]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested, based on offers of regional selective assistance accepted between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1995, is as follows:

  Per cent.

  England

  Cambridgeshire

  0.10

  Cheshire

  1.09

  Cleveland

  2.16

  Cornwall

  1.50

  Cumbria

  0.86

  189

  Per cent.

  Derbyshire

  0.09

  Devon

  1.05

  Dorset

  0.09

  Durham

  2.06

  East Sussex

  0.01

  Essex

  0.07

  Gloucestershire

  0.08

  Greater London

  0.14

  Greater Manchester

  3.50

  Hereford and Worcester

  0.45

  Humberside

  3.35

  Isle of Wight

  0.05

  Kent

  0.19

  Lancashire

  1.14

  Leicestershire

  0.06

  Lincolnshire

  0.12

  Merseyside

  4.04

  Norfolk

  0.04

  North Yorkshire

  0.01

  Northamptonshire

  0.25

  Northumberland

  1.25

  Nottinghamshire

  0.36

  Shropshire

  0.45

  South Yorkshire

  2.26

  Staffordshire

  0.19

  Suffolk

  0.01

  Tyne and Wear

  3.83

  Warwickshire

  0.54

  West Midlands

  4.68

  West Yorkshire

  0.73

  Wales

  Clwyd

  5.84

  Dyfed

  0.81

  Gwent

  5.81

  Gwynedd

  1.11

  Mid Glamorgan

  8.53

  Powys

  0.13

  South Glamorgan

  0.95

  West Glamorgan

  2.14

  Scotland

  37.90

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total regional development grant per head allocated to each English and Welsh county and Scotland in the last five years; and what was the English average. [36724]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested, based on offers of regional selective assistance accepted between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1995, is as follows:

  Grant per head £

  England

  Cambridgeshire

  2.11

  Cheshire

  16.04

  Cleveland

  55.05

  Cornwall

  45.05

  Cumbria

  24.91

  Derbyshire

  1.32

  Devon

  14.29

  Dorset

  1.94

  Durham

  48.36

  East Sussex

  0.28

  Essex

  0.60

  Gloucestershire

  2.21

  Greater London

  0.30

  Greater Manchester

  19.43

  190

  Grant per head £

  Hereford and Worcester

  9.22

  Humberside

  54.19

  Isle of Wight

  5.22

  Kent

  1.78

  Lancashire

  11.48

  Leicestershire

  0.93

  Lincolnshire

  2.89

  Merseyside

  39.88

  Norfolk

  0.74

  North Yorkshire

  0.21

  Northamptonshire

  6.06

  Northumberland

  58.08

  Nottinghamshire

  4.96

  Shropshire

  15.39

  South Yorkshire

  24.67

  Staffordshire

  2.64

  Suffolk

  0.14

  Tyne and Wear

  48.12

  Warwickshire

  15.80

  West Midlands

  25.37

  West Yorkshire

  4.97

  Average Grant Per Head1

  10.85

  Wales

  Clwyd

  200.96

  Dyfed

  32.86

  Gwent

  184.45

  Gwynedd

  65.88

  Mid Glamorgan

  224.15

  Powys

  15.07

  South Glamorgan

  33.18

  West Glamorgan

  82.20

  Scotland

  105.78

  1 Based on total population for England.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the United Kingdom assisted area population resides in Devon and Cornwall. [36723]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The percentage of the UK assisted area population resident in Devon and Cornwall is 5.03 per cent.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of Lord Justice Scott on the inquiry into arms sales to Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [37110]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: I understand from Sir Richard Scott that he has virtually finished the section of his report dealing with prosecutions arising from exports to Iraq in the period 1984 to 1990. He is currently completing the writing of his recommendations chapter.

  I understand that the inquiry is engaged in seeking comments on criticisms of individuals made by Sir Richard Scott in the prosecutions section of the report. When Sir Richard has received those comments, he will consider them and, as appropriate, revise the report.
  191
  It is impossible to predict with certainty how soon the report will be completed. This depends on a number of factors, including the extent and promptness of the responses to the draft extracts which have been, and continue to be, sent to people.

  Subject to that, I am informed that the inquiry's own present expectation is that the final text will be completed in early December. The report will then be printed and published as soon as practicable thereafter.

  Newspaper Carriage Charges
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions are taking place between the Director General of Fair Trading, the newspaper wholesalers and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents in relation to newspaper carriage charges. [36953]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There have been no such discussions involving the Office of Fair Trading since the Director General of Fair Trading announced his decision on 21 August not to refer the wholesale distribution of newspaper to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

PRIME MINISTER

  Priorities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister what are his priorities for the remaining period of his premiership. [36028]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech that I made on 13 October, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36996]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: For this purpose my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 16 October 1995.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) of 17 March,Official Report, column 735, if he will now make it his practice to release historic details of nuclear weapons numbers in the United Kingdom arsenal. [36840]
  192
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information on the size of our nuclear forces since the 1970s was published in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995, Cm 2800, pages 38–39. We have no current plans to release further details of our nuclear weapons numbers.

  Rosyth Naval Base
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the sale of Rosyth naval base; and if he will make a statement. [37738]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have now received the results of the recent tender exercise for the sale of the naval base. After careful analysis, and the submission of revised bids following further discussions with all the complaint bidders, the tender submitted by the Rosyth 2000 consortium was judged to be the best offer in terms of producing convincing business plans for the regeneration of the area and representing a fair return to the taxpayer for the sale of the base. The consortium has been selected as our preferred tenderer and our negotiations with the company will now continue to ensure a smooth transition of the naval base to civilian use by the end of March 1996. I am confident that Rosyth 2000 has the expertise and financial resources to sustain the regeneration of the area that we all wish to see.

  Military Survey Defence Agency
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key performance targets have been set for the Military Survey defence agency for 1995–96. [37877]

  Mr. Soames
  The Military Survey defence agency key targets for 1995–96 are:

  (1) To complete the endorsed in-year production programme, recognising that this may be impacted upon by unforeseeable, higher priority operational and emergency requirements.

  (2) To implement by 31 March 1996 those three-year review study recommendations applicable to the agency, to include the development of customer agreement procedures.

  (3) To implement by 31 March 1996 the military survey fundamental review redesign report, stage 1, part 2.

  (4) To implement by 1 April 1998 a capability to support a specified geographic requirement package; initially to have costed the geographic implications for the Department by 31 March 1996.

  (5) To improve the work unit cost of the production programme by 31 March 1996 by 3 per cent., in accruals terms, from an agreed 1 April 1995 baseline.

  These key targets take forward much of the work of previous targets and prominence is given to the agency's core outputs. They also drive the management reforms possible because of agency status. More detail on these reforms, including those applicable to the agency and fundamental reviews, are contained in the agency's 1994 annual report, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

SCOTLAND

  Roads
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed capital allocation for roads in the
  193
  Angus unitary authority for the years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. [36456]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Capital allocations for roads and transport for the new unitary authorities in Scotland, including Angus, have still to be determined for these years.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the capital allocation for roads in Tayside region in each year since 1983, at 1994 prices. [36405]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The annual roads and transport capital allocations for Tayside regional council since 1982–83 at 1994 prices are set out in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Allocation

  1994–95 prices

  1982–83

  6.50

  11.68

  1983–84

  6.97

  11.97

  1984–85

  8.20

  13.41

  1985–86

  8.00

  12.40

  1986–87

  8.25

  12.42

  1987–88

  8.20

  11.72

  1988–89

  7.50

  10.04

  1989–90

  8.40

  10.51

  1990–91

  8.50

  9.85

  1991–92

  9.50

  10.36

  1992–93

  9.10

  9.54

  1993–94

  9.00

  9.16

  1994–95

  8.85

  8.85

  1995–96

  8.20

  7.96

  Some capital allocations prior to 1995–96 include in year supplementary allocations.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Transfer of Land Report
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he plans to implement recommendations in the Law Commission's report on Transfer of Land—Obsolete Restrictive Covenants, Law Com. No. 201. [37634]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Due to concerns about the potential costs to the public of using the scheme recommended by the Law Commission, and following careful consideration of representations from the public in this regard, it is not the Government's intention to implement the commission's recommendations. However, the matter will be kept under review following implementation of the commission's recommendations in Law Com. No. 127 for a scheme of land obligations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Upper Waiting Hall (Exhibitions)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the work of the Henley management college to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.
  194
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 13 November to Friday 17 November 1995.

WALES

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs were created or safeguarded as a result of regional selective assistance granted to companies in Ynys Môn in each year since 1990. [36654]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Regional selective assistance offers accepted between 1 July 1990 and 30 September 1995 where some payments have been made are forecast to create or safeguard 521 jobs. To date, 343 jobs have been accounted for.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Detention Centres (Emotional Disturbances)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his assessment of the significance of emotional disturbance among young people as a factor associated with inmates of detention centres, indicating his estimate of the proportion of the cost accounted for by such young people; and if he will make a statement. [36631]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Detention centres and youth custody centres were replaced by young offender institutions in 1988.

  Two studies have been commissioned by the Home Office into the mental health of sentenced and unsentenced prisoners. Both include findings on young males in prison, although data on young females were not collated separately from data on adult females. The report of the first study was published in May 1991 under the title "Mentally Disordered Prisoners". The report of the second study, "Mental Disorder in Remand Prisoners" was received by the Home Office in late September 1995.

  The 1990 study showed that 33 per cent. of sentenced young male offenders in the sample group were diagnosed as suffering from some form of psychiatric disorder, including harmful or dependant misuse of substances. The corresponding figure for unsentenced young male offenders in the 1995 study was 53 per cent. of the sample group.

  No figures are available on the cost of maintaining inmates with emotional or mental health problems, as opposed to those without such problems.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the reduction in fire deaths attributable to the installation of smoke alarms. [37133]
  195
  Mr. Howard
  None. However, United Kingdom fire statistics for 1993 reveal death rates for fires in dwellings which are discovered by smoke alarms are lower than those which are not discovered by smoke alarms; three deaths per 1,000 fires compared with nine deaths per 1,000 fires.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he authorised the office of the prisons ombudsman to refuse to investigate complaints which are received in a prisoner's own handwriting. [37195]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Complaints to the prisons ombudsman are never rejected because they are hand-written. The vast majority of complaints received by the prisons ombudsman are in the prisoner's own writing and are carefully considered to see whether they are eligible for investigation within the terms of the ombudsman's remit. It is, of course, helpful to the ombudsman's office if handwritten letters are legible. The ombudsman also accepts complaints from prisoners written in foreign languages. The detailed procedures are set out in the document, "The Prisons Ombudsman: A Note on Arrangements" a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Operation Bumblebee
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the trends in domestic burglaries in London since the inception of Operation Bumblebee. [37170]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that prior to the launch of Operation Bumblebee in June 1993, the number of domestic burglaries recorded for the financial year 1992–93 was 127,611. A total of 15,136—11.8 per cent.—of these offences were cleared up. By 31 March 1995 the number of recorded burglaries had fallen to 106,558, while the number of crimes cleared up had risen to 20,666—19.4 per cent.

  Remand Custody
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a)(b) 16 and (c) 17-year-old-boys were remanded into custody during (i) 1990, (ii) 1991 and (iii) 1992. [37186]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information on the number of 15 to 17-year-old boys received on remand into prison service establishments in England and Wales is given in the tables. The age split requested is not available for 1990–1991. This information is also published in successive volumes of "Prison statistics, England and Wales"—table 3.9 of the 1992 edition (Cm 2581) and table 2.6 for earlier years. Copies of these publications are available from the Library.

  Table 1: Receptions of male remand prisoners, aged 14–20 into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales 1990–1992

  Age

  Total aged under 21

  Year

  14–16

  17–20

  19901

  1,240

  18,517

  19,575

  19911

  1,164

  19,077

  20,241

  1 Only age split available.

  196

  Table 2

  Age

  Total aged under 18

  Year

  15

  16

  17

  1992

  377

  720

  3,755

  4,852

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people aged(a) 12 to 14 and (b) 15 to 16 years were held in custody on remand in (i) local authority accommodation, (ii) prison services accommodation and (iii) any other venue in 1994 and in each of the previous five years. [36261]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information on the number of young persons remanded to local authority accommodation in England is published by the Department of Health in "Children accommodated in secure units"—reference A/F 94/21, table 10. This information is presented on a financial year basis with the last report covering the year ending 31 March 1994. The available information on the number of 14 to 16-years-olds received on remand into prison service establishments in England and Wales is given in the table. No age split is available for 1989–1991.

  This information is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales", table 3.9 of 1992 and 1993 editions, Cms 2581 and 2893, copies of which are available in the library. No information is available for young persons held in any other venue.

  Receptions of 14, 15 and 16 year old remand prisoners into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales 1989–1994

  Age

  Year

  314

  15

  16

  Total

  19891

  —

  —

  —

  1,476

  19901

  —

  —

  —

  1,243

  19911

  —

  —

  —

  1,168

  1992

  4

  377

  721

  1,102

  1993

  0

  454

  907

  1,361

  19942

  0

  634

  1,103

  1,737

  1 No age split available.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Following implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in October 1992, 14 year old boys may not be remanded to Prison Service establishments.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of farms of the size(a) 1 to 25 hectares, (b) 26 to 50 hectares, (c) 51 to 75 hectares, (d) 76 to 100 hectares, (e) 101 to 150 hectares, (f) 151 to 200 hectares and (g) 201 or more hectares for (i) the last available year and (ii) 1985. [36430]

  Mr. Boswell
  Statistics for England from the June agricultural census for the years 1985 and 1994 are shown in the table:

  Holding size (hectares)

  1985

  1994

  0.1 to 0.9

  4,405

  4,001

  1.0 to 25.9

  68,839

  72,352

  26.0 to 50.9

  28,188

  25,980

  51.0 to 75.9

  16,233

  15,169

  197

  Holding size (hectares)

  1985

  1994

  76.0 to 100.9

  10,358

  10,095

  101.0 to 150.9

  10,992

  10,969

  151.0 to 200.9

  5,553

  5,503

  201 and over

  9.198

  9,357

  Total holdings

  153.766

  153,426

  1. The above figures exclude minor holdings.

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) ITN Net, (g) Andersen Consulting, (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36959]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: Since 1990, no outsourcing contracts have been granted by the Department or its agencies to any of the companies listed. Consequently, there has been no additional work.

  Fish (Pollution)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the dangers to cod, haddock and plaice stocks in the North sea of the pollutions of hydrocarbons in drilling wastes discharging from rigs [37292]

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been a number of recent studies which examined the levels of hydrocarbons and taint in fish. These show some evidence that oil residues are present but no evidence of taint. There are no dangers to cod, haddock or plaice stocks in the North sea arising from drilling wastes.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the mortality rates from(a) cervical, (b) breast, (c) lung and (d) bowel cancer in (i) England and (ii) other OECD countries. [36618]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is shown in the table.

  Provisional mortality rates for England 1993

  Description

  ICD91 code

  Crude death rate (per 100,000)

  Malignant neoplasm of the bowel

  152,153,154

  31.3

  Malignant neoplasm of the lung

  162

  62.9

  Malignant neoplasm of the female breast

  174

  49.3

  Malignant neoplasm of the cervix uteri

  180

  5.6

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  198
  The latest available data for other Organisation of Holding size Economic Co-operation and Development countries can be found in the "World Health Statistics Annual 1993", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the mortality rates from all cancers in(a) England and (b) other OECD countries. [36617]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is shown in the table.

  Provisional mortality rates for England 1993

  Description

  ICD91 code

  Crude death rate (per 100,000)

  Malignant neoplasms

  140–208

  270.7

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  The latest available data for other Organisations of Economic Co-operation and Development Countries can be found in the "World Health Statistics Annual 1993", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Junior Doctors (Accommodation Changes)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department gives to trusts in relation to charging junior doctors for hospital accommodation when they are required by their contract to be resident on call. [37220]

  Mr. Malone
  The terms and conditions of service for hospital medical and dental staff (England and Wales) handbook includes the provisions for charges for residence for junior doctors whether they are compulsory resident practitioners or voluntary resident practitioners. From 1 April 1995 the ceiling on lodging charges for voluntary resident practitioners was removed. AL(MD)4/95, which announced this change, was issued on 12 June 1995 and contains guidance for employing bodies on the provision of accommodation for hospital medical and dental staff, including compulsorily resident practitioners.

  Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36370]

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

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's assessment of the potential value of a national awareness week focusing on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and similar conditions; and if he will make a statement. [36648]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am advised that it is unlikely that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder would benefit from presentation in this way.
  199
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last three years(a) the total amount estimated to have been spent on mental health treatment and (b) the total amount estimated to have been spent in treating children diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, indicating in each case the percentage of each item as a proportion of the total health budget; and if he will make a statement. [36651]

  Mr. Bowis
  The available information on the amount spent on mental health treatment is shown in the table.

  Information on the amount spent on treating children diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not available centrally.

  Mental illness expenditure cash prices£ million

  Mental illness expenditure 1993–94 prices£ million

  Mental illness as a proportion of total hospital and community health services expenditure Percentage

  1991–92

  2,185.3

  2,341.8

  11.58

  1992–93

  2,350.30

  2,422.2

  11.56

  1. Final figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  2. The gross domestic product deflator was used to calculate the 1993–94 prices.

  3. The mental illness expenditure is made up of the following:

  (a) in-patient and outpatient expenditure—the consultant specialities of mental illness, child and adolescent psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, physiotherapy and old age psychiatry.

  (b) day patient expenditure—in the categories, mental illness (alcoholism, drug abuse, psychogeriatrics and general), child and adolescent psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.

  4. Expenditure figures for 1991–92 onwards are not comparable with earlier years due to changes in national health service accountancy practices.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines to assist head teachers and social workers in providing for the medical problems of hyperactive children; and if he will make a statement. [36652]

  Mr. Bowis
  Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder who are regarded as having special educational needs should be assessed on an individual basis by a team of appropriately trained professionals, as provided for in the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs issued last year by the Department for Education and Employment and the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the linkage between long-term addictive tendencies and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and if he will make a statement. [36656]

  Mr. Bowis
  Some research suggests that children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may have an increased risk of developing further problems later in childhood and in adolescence, including substance abuse. The nature of any such linkage is, however, not yet clear.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department provides for adoptive parents who discover that their adopted child is 200
  affected by attention deficit disorder or similar condition; and if he will make a statement. [36657]

  Mr. Bowis
  Advice for parents, whether adoptive or otherwise, is a matter for professional consideration in each individual case.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of conventional family therapy in the case of families in which one or more children are affected by attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. [36658]

  Mr. Bowis
  Family therapy may play a part in a comprehensive treatment programme which may also include medication and other interventions. With young children and in milder forms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, family therapy may be an appropriate and effective approach on its own—for example, if focused on enhancing parenting skills and helping the child learn strategies to improve concentration.

  Breast Cancer (Radiotherapy Damage)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of women whose treatment by radiotherapy after breast cancer has led to major permanent injuries; what plans he has to pay compensation in these cases; and what compensation has been paid in each of the last five years. [37224]

  Mr. Sackville
  No estimate has been made but the Department of Health is working with Rage Breast, a patient support group representing women who have had radiotherapy for breast cancer which has led to major permanent injuries. There are no plans to pay compensation in these cases, nor has any compensation been paid in the last five years. We sympathise fully with those suffering as a result of any medical side effect; however, we consider that compensation by the national health service is appropriate only when there is evidence of medical negligence. The Government's position remains that the basis for seeking compensation should be by proof of negligence through the courts.

  "Pocket Guide to the NHS in London"
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the "Pocket Guide to the NHS in London" cost to write, publish and distribute; how many copies have been produced; and to whom and to which organisations it has been distributed. [37424]

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 15,000 copies of the "Pocket Guide to the NHS in London" have been produced at a total cost of £26,000. The guide has been distributed to a wide range of organisations and individuals in London including health authorities and trusts, hon. and right hon. Members, community health councils, general practices, local authorities and the media. The response to the guide has been overwhelmingly favourable with many requests for additional copies.

  Health Care from Non-NHS Providers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on purchasing care from non-NHS providers by fundholders, trusts, heath authorities and in total in each year since 1990. [37425]
  201
  Mr. Sackville
  The table details expenditure on purchasing care for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 for general practitioner fundholders, national health services trusts, health authorities and in total. Figures for 1990–91 are not available.

  Purchase of health care from non-NHS providers (England) 1991–92 to 1993–94

  £ thousands

  1991–92

  1992–93

  19943–94

  GP fundholders

  3,698

  13,127

  29,899

  NHS trusts

  12,204

  45,436

  50,386

  Health authorities

  194,471

  210,558

  277,716

  Total

  210,373

  269,121

  358,001

  Source:

  1. Annual accounts of family health services authorities; regional, districts and special health authorities for the London postgraduate hospitals, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  2. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts, regional, district and special health authorities for the London postgraduates hospitals 1991–92.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government intend to respond to the second report of the Health Select Committee on London's Ambulance Service, HC 20; and if he will make a statement. [37633]

  Mr. Sackville
  Copies of the Government's response to the Health Committee's report on London's Ambulance Service have been laid before the House today.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Agency Targets
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what targets she has set for the executive agencies in her Department. [37739]

  Mr. Sproat
  The following targets have been set for 1995–96:

  For the Historic Royal Parks agency

  Financial Targets:

  Commercial Surplus—£7.4 million

  Call on the taxpayer: £6.7 million

  Visitor Satisfaction Measures1

  Visitors' average ratings of:

  Value for Money—0.7 to 1.0

  Enjoyment—above 1.4

  Helpful and friendly staff—above 1.4

  Efficiency Target:

  Savings on running costs—2 per cent.

  Conservation Target:
  To complete the fire prevention works planned for 1995–96 and the programme of works identified by the buildings condition surveys as needed in 1995–96. To undertake further detailed inspections of the specific areas identified by the surveys as possibly needing work in 1996–97.
  1Visitor ratings are assessed from market research interviews with 900 visitors, undertaken by independent consultants each summer. 2.0 is extremely good; 1.5 is very good; 1.0 is quite good; 0 is OK; -1.0 is quite poor; -2.0 is very poor.
  For the Royal Parks agency
  202
  Fabric:

  (i) Examine the scope for private sector finance to fund the necessary works required to remove the three remaining buildings on the "at risk" register.

  (ii) Carry out all the outstanding maintenance identified as necessary to meet health and safety obligations.

  (iii) Redraft tender documents for three remaining grounds maintenance contracts which expire in March 1996, invite competitive tenders and award new contracts.

  (iv) Achieve an average rating of at least 75 per cent. across all parks in response to the visitor survey question: "how do you rate the cleanliness of this park?"

  (v) Redraft tender documents for the works management contract.

  Financial:

  (i) Increase income from £1.8 million in 199–95 to £2.3 million from permits, licences, events, concessions and car parking.

  (ii) Achieve 1.5 per cent. improvement in running costs efficiency.

  (iii) Complete development of an agency pay and grading system in order that a new system can be introduced by 1 April 1996.

  Visitor Survey:

  Achieve an overall quality rating of 8 marks out of 10 in response to visitor survey question "Overall, how would you rate the quality of the park?"

  Assessment of soft landscape quality:
  Each park to achieve an overall score of 7 marks out of 10 for its soft landscape presentation.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total income received to date(a) in tax revenue, (b) in money for distribution to good causes since the start of the national lottery and (c) in interest received on money prior to expenditure being incurred by the distribution boards. [37487]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: For the period 22 November 1994 to 30 September 1995, £410.7 million has been paid in duty levied on the national lottery. For the same period, £1,093 million has been paid to the national lottery distribution fund for distribution to good causes and £30.7 million of interest has accrued to the fund as a whole.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether the interest on the lottery income earmarked for distribution by the National Lottery Charities Board is being added, automatically and in full, to the money available for future distribution by that board; how the money is being held; and under what rules it is to be released to the board. [37484]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: Pending draw down by the distributing bodies, proceeds available from the national lottery are held in the national lottery distribution fund. Funds are invested and balances calculated for each distributing body. The NLDF investment account is revalued before each transaction, either receipt or draw down of funds—for payment of grants or expenses—and interest is apportioned in full to each body. Funds are normally drawn on a monthly basis, in accordance with procedures agreed between the Department of National Heritage, the National Debt Commissioners and the distributing bodies.
  203
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will show(a) the income earmarked for distribution by the National Lottery Charities Board from the income in each month since money started to flow from the national lottery, (b) the cumulative total held in respect of the NLCB at an appropriate point in each month, (c) how much of that total is held respectively (i) by the Treasury, (ii) by his Department or (iii) in any other fund and (d) the rate of interest and the total cash figure earned each month from the sums held. [37483]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: The National Lottery Charities Board is allocated one fifth of the money generated by the national lottery for the national lottery distribution fund. Since 22 November 1994, £217.4 million has accrued to the charities board, which is an average of £20.7 million per month. All money paid into the fund, not immediately required for distribution, is paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and invested by them in accordance with Treasury directions. Interest is accrued on the fund as a whole and apportioned to each distributor. To date, £30.7 million of interest has accrued to the fund as a whole, of which £6.3 million is attributable to the charities board.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will show(a) the income received in taxation in respect of each month since such income started to flow from the national lottery, (b) the total income from distribution to good causes received in respect of each month since such income started to flow, (c) the proportion and sum earmarked for distribution by the National Lottery Charities Board from each month's income, (d) the sums actually disbursed by the Treasury each month, indicating the amounts within the total passed to the Home Office and direct to the National Lottery Charities Board, (e) the amount of interest earned each month on the sums held by the Treasury for future distribution by the National Lottery Charities Board and (f) the cumulative monthly total including interest held by the Treasury for each month since the income commenced. [37486]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: The national lottery distribution fund is maintained under the control of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. All money paid into the fund not immediately required for distribution, is paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and invested by them in accordance with Treasury directions.

  Let by

  Activity

  Name of successful bid

  Won by in-house bid

  1992–93

  DNH

  Computer equipment and related services

  SEMA Group Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House Security

  Royal British Legion Attendants Company

  No in-house bid

  1993–94

  DNH

  Consultancy for advice on competitive tendering of works management functions

  Watts and Partners

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Reprographics

  Williams Lea FM

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Central typing and secretarial

  Manpower plc

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Mailroom

  Security Despatch Group

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Security

  Royal British Legion Association

  No in-house bid

  204
  For the period 22 November 1994 to 30 September 1995, £410.7 million has been paid in duty levied on the national lottery, which is an average of £41 million per month.

  For the same period, £1,093 million, has been paid to the national lottery distribution fund for distribution to good causes. This is an average of £104 million per month. One fifth of all money paid into the fund is allocated to the National Lottery Charities Board. To date, this equates to £217.4 million, which is accrued at an average of £20.7 million per month.

  To date, £65.3 million has been paid to distributors, an average of £6.5 million per month. Of the total, £6.6 million has been paid to the National Lottery Charities Board.

  Interest accrued on the charities board share of the national lottery distribution fund, since the start of the lottery, totals £6.3 million. This is an average of £0.6 million per month.

  The total value of the fund to date stands at £1,052 million, which represents average monthly income of £100.2 million.

  In-House Bids
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those parts of his Department or departmental agencies which were privatised without an in-house bid; if he will indicate the expertise which was absent in his Department or departmental agencies which prevented an in-house bid taking place; which future parts of his Department or departmental agencies he intends to privatise; and which of them do not have the necessary in-house expertise to mount an in-house bid. [29432]

  Mr. Sproat
  [pursuant to the reply, 20 June 1995, c. 177–82]: I regret that there was an omission from the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State. Following is the complete answer that should have been provided.

  Since it was formed in April 1992, my Department and its agencies have contracted out the activities listed. As a newly formed Department, central services had been supplied by former parent Departments and thus there were no existing staff to mount an in-house bid. In order to concentrate on its core policy tasks it was decided to contract out these activities. Activities contracted out in the past and planned for the future, are as follows:
  205

  Let by

  Activity

  Name of successful bid

  Won by in-house bid

  DNH

  Minor maintenance

  Richard Devine

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Cleaning

  Ramoneur

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Reception

  Manpower plc

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Payments and Accounts Services

  Accounts Services Agency

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Property maintenance management

  Tarmac Facilities Management

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kew Palace—Security Services

  Royal British Legion

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace—Gardens Litter Clearance

  SITA

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace

  Initial Cleaning Services

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Catering

  De blanks

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cleaning

  Swanlux

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cash Collection

  Armaguard/Security Express

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Cleaning Services

  Sloane Cleaning

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Security

  Royal British Legion

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Porterage

  Universal

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Catering

  10 companies used—selected by tender

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Banqueting House—Floristry

  Nancy Ford

  No in-house bid

  1994–95

  DNH

  Provision of works management services for certain properties in central London

  E. C. Harris

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Provision of works management services for central ceremonial activities

  Unicorn Consultancy Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Provision of works services management at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich

  Taylor Woodrow Facilities ManagementNo in-house bid

  DNH

  Statue maintenance services

  Stonewest Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Services relating to Trafalgar Square Christmas Tree and New Year works

  Building and Property Facilities Management Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Record Storage, Retrieval and Review

  Britannia Data Management

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Management of Car Parking Facilities

  Apcoa Parking Ltd.

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Audit Services

  Price Waterhouse

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Estate management duties

  Daniel Smith

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  IT Consultants

  Internet Solutions

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Ticketing/EPOS Systems

  MHG Systems Select Ticketing

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Window Cleaning

  Metropolitan

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Computer Maintenance

  HMSO

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Commercial Guard Force

  RBLA

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Signage—Moat Gardens

  HB Sign Company

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Costumed Interpretation

  Past Pleasures

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Garden Maintenance

  Ground Control

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace—Catering

  Town and County

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace—Costumed Interpretation

  Past Pleasures

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Hampton Court Palace—Recorded Tour Service

  Acoustiguide

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Catering

  De blanks/Digby Trout

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cleaning

  Securicor

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cash Collection

  Armaguard/Security Express

  No in-house bid

  1995–96

  DNH

  Consultancy for provision of professional support and advisory services relating to other Royal Estate Division works responsibilities

  Tenders under consideration

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Services relating to Remembrance Day ceremony works

  Tendering exercise planned for later in the year

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Stationery

  No yet awarded

  No in-house bid

  DNH

  Payments and Accounts Services

  CSL Managed Services

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Car Park Security duties

  Reliance Security

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Entertainment Organiser

  Not yet awarded

  —

  The Royal Parks

  Royal Parks Constabulary, recruit training

  Tenders under consideration

  No in-house bid

  The Royal Parks

  Additional Horse Grooming duties

  Tendering exercise planned for later in the year

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Computer Maintenance

  LCE Computer Systems

  No in-house bid

  206 207

  Let by

  Activity

  Name of successful bid

  Won by in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  HM Tower of London—Cash Collection/Counting

  Security Express

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Catering

  Securicor

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cleaning

  Securicor

  No in-house bid

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Kensington Palace—Cash Collection

  Armaguard/Security Express

  No in-house bid

  1996–97

  Historic Royal Palaces

  All Palaces Security Warding

  Tenders to be invited September 1995, contract to start 1 April 1996

  No in-house bid

  Millennium Fund
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how much money has been already promised from the millennium fund in each English and Welsh county; [36719]

  (2) how many individual projects have applied for funding from the millennium fund in each English and Welsh county. [36720]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the Commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

TREASURY

  Local Government Finance, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he will be giving the Department of the Environment following the meeting and correspondence between the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight and Mr. Orchard of the Department of Employment about the data in the new earnings survey and the Isle of Wight and the area cost adjustment formulae. [35989]

  Mrs. Knight
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him in my letter dated 28 July, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the rights of individual members of the public to make complaints to any of the appropriate ombudsmen about services or projects funded through the private finance initiative in his Department. [36823]

  Mr. Jack
  For Treasury and other Chancellor's Departments, members of the public have the same rights to make complaints of alleged maladministration to the relevant ombudsman concerning a project funded through the private finance initiative as they would have had if the project had been publicly financed.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he had made of the cost to the Exchequer of profit-related pay for each of the last three years; and what is the estimate for this financial year. [37161]
  208
  Mr. Jack
  Estimates of the cost of income tax relief for profit-related pay schemes in 1994–95 and 1995–96 are published in table 1.6 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1995, a copy of which is in the Library. Estimates for other years can be found in earlier editions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Outsourcing Contracts
  Mr.McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many outsourcing contracts were granted by his Department or agencies in each year since 1990, indicating the nature and value of each contract; and if any additional work was added and of what value to(a) Hoskyns/Cap Gemini Segeti, (b) AT and T Istel, (c) EDS, (d) Sema Group, (e) Datasolve, (f) IT Net, (g) Andersen Consulting (h) Centre File, (i) BIS, (j) Telecom Capita, (k) ICL, (l) Digital Equipment, (m) CFM, (n) Siemens, (o) Nixdorf, (p) CMG and (q) Logica. [36956]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: The following outsourced contracts have been awarded:

  (e) Datasolve—Since 1990 Datasolve has provided a hot-site contingency service for the Water Executive mainframe. As this is the only outsourced contract with this company its value cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  (f) IT Net—Two separate contracts for system software and support for the Department of Economic Development.

  1994–95: £193,613 main contract

  1995–96: £25,560 main contract

  No additional work was added to the contracts.]

  (i) BIS—Two Separate contracts were awarded for consultancy support.

  1993–94: £19,500 main contract

  1994–95: £5,040 main contract

  (k) ICL—a hardware support contract was awarded in respect of the Valuation and Lands Agency computer system, a financial computer system for the Water Executive, road maintenance and traffic accident systems for the Roads Service. As 1994–94 was the only year when more than one contract was in operation the cost of the contracts for other years cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  1994–95: £249,2178 main contract

  No additional contract work was added to the contracts.

  (l) Digital—An office automation system for the DOE NI. The cost cannot be disclosed because of commercial confidentiality.

  209

  (m) CFM—Contracts for the provision of a computer bureau and associated services for NICS Departments and the NIO, data capture for agricultural area aid applications, an accounting system for the Department of Agriculture NI, mainframe computer services for DHSS NI, file storage for the NI Child Support Agency, child benefit payments and giro reconciliation for the Social Security Agency contract programmers and a print and dispatch service for the Rate Collection Agency and a mainframe management contract for the Department of Economic Development.

  Main contract £

  Additional £

  1991–92

  3,520,000

  27,000

  1992–93

  6,128,000

  364,000

  1993–94

  6,146,859

  578,000

  1994–95

  5,706,109

  322,125

  1995–96

  5,162,516

  200,000

  (q) Logica—A software support contract for the Valuation and Lands Agency and the provision and maintenance of a mainframe for the Department of Economic Development.

  Main contract £

  Additional £

  1991–92

  162,008

  137,801

  1992–93

  246,400

  169,173

  1993–94

  279,300

  3,412

  1994–95

  233,380

  58,500

  1995–96

  229,548

  —

  Housing
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, following the 25 per cent. rise above estimates in tender costs for house building in Northern Ireland in the current year, what plans he has to provide emergency extra funding for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. [37388]

  Mr. Moss
  None. However, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive can, along with other important public expenditure programmes, bid for any resources which

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995 to 11 October

  Department of Agriculture

  45

  65

  52

  63

  62

  56

  Department of Economic Development

  45

  79

  71

  54

  44

  36

  Department of Education

  22

  28

  24

  25

  20

  13

  Department of Environment

  183

  224

  244

  210

  208

  166

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  2

  9

  10

  6

  6

  4

  Department of Health and Social Services

  131

  106

  154

  121

  117

  91

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  25

  18

  22

  23

  29

  17

  Medicines Act 1968, 1971 made jointly by Great Britain and Northern Ireland Departments

  11

  8

  20

  10

  22

  4

  Because a number of statutory rules, regulations and orders are made by more than one Department the figures when broken down by Department are greater than the overall total.

  Business Development Service
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the prior options study of the business development service has been completed; and what was the outcome of the study. [37873]
  210
  might become available in-year within the Northern Ireland block.

  National Anthem
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the policy of the Northern Ireland Department of Education in respect of whether the national anthem is sectarian. [37362]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government's policy remains that the national anthem should be played on ceremonial occasions. Its use on other occasions is a matter for the relevant authorities in each case.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what grounds the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland issued instructions that the national anthem should not be played when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II visited Northern Ireland to open the new Lagan bridge in Belfast. [37360]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No instructions were issued either by the Department of the Environment or my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

  Statutory Rules, Regulations and Orders
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many statutory rules, regulations and orders have been made in total, and by each Northern Ireland Department, over the last five years. [37393]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of statutory rules, regulations and orders made by my right hon. and learned Friend and Northern Ireland Departments over the last five years is as follows:

  1990: 426

  1991: 506

  1992: 536

  1993: 463

  1994: 478

  1995 to 11 October: 362

  The breakdown by Department is as follows:

  Sir John Wheeler
  On 18 January 1994, I announced that the business development service of the Department of Finance and Personnel would be subject to a prior options study. That study is now complete and I have decided that the business development service of DFP
  211
  should become a next steps agency and that preparations for launch should proceed, with a view to agentisation by 1 April 1996.

  Health and Social Services
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many administrators or managers with salaries there were in(a) the Department of Health and Social Services, (b) the management executive, (c) the four area boards and (d) the various trusts for the last available year. [37293]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  DHSS

  Number with pay

  Whole-time equivalent

  DHSS staff employed on health-related matters, excluding the Management Executive

  158

  153.04

  Staff employed in the Management Executive

  334

  328.37

  DHSS total

  492

  481.41

  Trusts

  Number with pay

  WTE

  Belfast City Hospital Trust

  536

  490.19

  Green Park Trust

  296

  271.27

  South and East Belfast Trust

  530

  443.37

  UNDAH Trust

  419

  355.05

  Royal Trust

  828

  757.31

  Mater Trust

  140

  130.17

  North and West Belfast Community Trust

  442

  387.74

  Down and Lisburn Trust

  494

  440.02

  North Down and Ards Trust

  294

  242.11

  Causeway Trust

  426

  376.44

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group Trust

  255

  233.14

  Newry and Mourne Trust

  287

  250.97

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust

  222

  188.69

  NI Ambulance Service Trust

  39

  37.91

  Trust total

  5,208

  4,604.38

  Boards

  Number with pay

  WTE

  Eastern Health and Social Services Board

  EHSSB Headquarters

  226

  218.24

  Regional Medical Physics Agency

  9

  7.43

  Regional Supplies Service

  158

  153.08

  Blood Transfusion Service

  49

  44.28

  EHSSB Provider Support

  33

  33.00

  EHSSB total

  475

  456.03

  Northern Health and Social Services Board

  NHSSB Headquarters

  169

  159.70

  Homefirst Community Unit

  662

  568.38

  United Hospital Group

  588

  516.26

  NHSSB total

  1,419

  1,244.34

  212

  Boards

  Number with pay

  WTE

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  SHSSB Headquarters

  115

  110.50

  Armagh and Dungannon UOM

  361

  318.53

  SHSSB total

  476

  429.03

  Western Health and Social Services Board

  WHSSB Headquarters

  330

  323.09

  Altnagelvin Group

  199

  173.54

  Foyle Community

  266

  229.08

  Omagh and Fermanagh Group

  328

  305.77

  Western Board Commissioners

  64

  58.35

  WHSSB total

  1,187

  1,089.83

  Board grant total

  3,557

  3,219.23

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on self-promotion as distinct from services to patients and clients by(a) the Department of Health and Social Services, (b) the management executive, (c) the four area boards and (d) the various trusts for the last available year. [37294]

  Mr. Moss
  Neither the Department of Health and Social Services, which includes the management executive, nor any of its agent bodies in the health and personal social services incur expenditure on items which could be termed "self-promotion", as distinct from "public relations". Most HPSS bodies have a public relations function which is concerned with the communication to interested parties of information relating to services, service development, and health and personal social services issues generally.

  Chief Constable's Certificates
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Chief Constable's certificates issued between the commencement of the ceasefire and 30 September 1995 giving the date of the incident and the date of issue. [37225]

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

  Since PIRA declared its ceasefire on 31 August 1994, a total of 951 certificates have been issued by the Chief Constable under the criminal damage and criminal injuries legislation, of which 122 relate to acts committed since that date. Of the 122, a total of 52 relate to acts committed since the loyalist terrorists declared their ceasefire on 14 October 1994, when the general ceasefire situation took effect. The attached table details the number of certificates issued between 1 September 1994 and end September 1995.

  Chief Constable's Certificates issued September 1994 to 30 September 1995 (Includes claims pre- and post- ceasefire)

  Injury

  Damage

  Total

  September 1994

  5

  160

  165

  October 1994

  3

  189

  192

  November 1994

  7

  96

  103

  December 1994

  10

  128

  138

  213

  Chief Constable's Certificates issued September 1994 to 30 September 1995 (Includes claims pre- and post- ceasefire)

  Injury

  Damage

  Total

  January 1995

  0

  80

  80

  February 1995

  2

  109

  111

  March 1995

  2

  35

  37

  April 1995

  5

  44

  49

  May 1995

  8

  16

  24

  June 1995

  1

  7

  8

  July 1995

  2

  17

  19

  August 1995

  1

  3

  4

  September 1995

  1

  20

  21

  Totals

  47

  904

  951

  Incidents from 1 September 1994 to 30 September 1995.

  1 September 199 to 13 October 1994: 66 Damage, four Injury.

  14 October 1994 to 30 September 1995: 51 Damage, one Injury.

  Valuation and Lands Agency
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Valuation and Lands Agency in 1995–96. [37874]

  Sir John Wheeler
  For 1995–96 the following key performance targets have been set for the agency:

  (1) To complete 39,000 rating cases, equivalent to 21,000 work units.

  (2) To complete 23,700 client service cases, equivalent to 20,700 work units.

  (3) To have met by 31 March 1996 all 1995–96 non-domestic revaluation project milestones as specified in the business plan.

  (4) To produce an action plan to implement the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny on Government-owned land and establish a central advisory unit within VLA.

  (5) To achieve a productivity for case working valuers of 316 work units.

  (6) To achieve at least a 2.5 per cent. efficiency saving on the 1994–95 allocation in real terms.

  (7) To reduce the unit cost of casework by 3.5 per cent. in real terms.

  (8) To issue 93 per cent. of certificates for rating cases subject to backdating within 12 months of the events giving rise to revisions of the valuation list.

  (9) To achieve a standard in rating valuations such that 88 per cent. of those determined on appeal are within (plus) + or (minus)—10 per cent. of the initial assessment.

  (10) To complete 84 per cent. of rating appeals within 6 months of receipt.

  (11) To complete 93 per cent. of a representative sample of client services casework within agreed time limits.

  Full details are sent out in the agency's corporate and business plans, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Health and Social Services Estates Agency
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency. [37875]

  Mr. Moss
  I am pleased to announce that the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency was established as an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Services on 2 October 1995, under simplified next steps procedures.
  214
  The agency is the principal source of expertise available to health and personal social services managers in all aspects of an estate which comprises some 427 sites covering approximately 1200 hectares throughout Northern Ireland. The agency has 127 staff, the majority of whom are within professional estates disciplines. The range of estate services which the agency will provide includes policy and strategic advice to the Department, as well as project sponsor support, planning, project management and design and consultancy services for health and personal social service bodies generally.

  I have delegated full managerial authority for the agency's day-to-day operation to its chief executive. A ministerial advisory board will enable me to ensure public accountability for the performance of the agency. The policy and resources framework of the agency is set out in its framework document, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, I have set challenging targets for the agency in its first six months of operation. These are as follows:

  Financial management
  To manage the agency's resources so as to deliver the business plan within a total budget of £2.156 million;
  To deliver efficiency savings of 4 per cent. and to develop a programme of efficiency reviews to ensure that the most efficient and effective use is made of the agency's resources.
  To develop a programme for the development and implementation of resource accounting system by 31 March 1996;
  To develop service level agreements with client bodies and broad assessments of the prices to be charged for each of these packages of services by 31 March 1996.

  Efficiency of services
  To continue the continuous market test of the design and consultancy function of the agency ensuring a 3 per cent. increase in achieved surplus of £368,000 over the previous market testing period.

  Delivery of services

  To have in place a service level agreement with the Health and Personal Social Services Management Executive for the provision of agreed services by 31 March 1996.
  To complete by 31 March 1996 a comprehensive survey of client satisfaction with the type and quality of the agency's services. This survey will provide the baseline against which future client satisfaction levels will be measured.
  To ensure that the following programme of work is completed:
  Issue of 70 guidance papers on matters of general safety as well as specific guidance on fire safety in residential care premises.
  Completion of the design and achievement of "practical completion" in respect of 25 schemes valued at £7.5 million.
  Completion of business cases for schemes with a value of £48 million.
  Completion of planning of two schemes with a value of £74 million.

  Police Complaints System
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will carry out a review of the police complaints system; and if he will make a statement. [37876]

  Sir John Wheeler
  After consultation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Authority and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, the
  215
  Government have concluded that after seven years' operation of the current police complaints system, it is appropriate now to review it. This review constitutes another important part of the major process of review of the policing service in Northern Ireland, and will be co-ordinated with the wider reform of policing structures and with the fundamental review of policing needs which the Secretary of State announced in a speech at Queen's university on 25 August this year.

  The Government will be appointing an independent reviewer shortly to take forward the review. Copies of the terms of reference have been placed in the Library.

  The terms of reference make it clear that the Government want a fundamental and wide-ranging review which will include examination of the current system of investigating complaints into the behaviour of individual officers but will also consider how complaints against police policy and standards of service can be dealt with. The review will begin in November with a report being presented to me no later than May 1996. The results of the review, and the Government's proposals for taking them forward, will be made public.

  I have no doubt that the reviewer will want to consult widely and I hope that, when comments are invited, all those with an interest will make their views known.

TRANSPORT

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what actions have been taken concerning departmental action on bomb warnings since the meeting on 14 June 1989 between assistant secretary C. T. Harris and Mr. and Mrs. Martin Cadman, Lockerbie relatives, and Mr. Derek Dempster, a member of the Air Transport Users Committee. [37451]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 6 March 1995, Official Report, column 55.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to improve the criterion for controlling the noise of aircraft landing and taking off at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports; [36705]

  (2) if the existing policy of controlling noise of aircraft landing and taking off at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted remains in force. [36701]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend's policy on noise abatement measures at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted has not changed.

  A consultation paper proposing increased monitoring efficiency and reductions in the noise limits which apply to departing aircraft at these airports, was issued on 3 October. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The aircraft noise monitoring advisory committee, which reviewed the departure noise limits, will now study
  216
  the feasibility of noise limits for landing aircraft at these airports.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36371]

  Mr. Norris
  The present rates of travel allowance that may be claimed by civil servants in the centre of the Department of Transport and in the Highways Agency, Transport Research Laboratory, Coastguard Agency, Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency, Marine Safety Agency and Vehicle Certification Agency are:

  Car (standard rate) engine capacity

  Up to 4,000 miles

  Over 4,000 miles

  Up to 1000cc

  27p

  15p

  1001cc to 1500cc

  35.7p

  19p

  1501cc to 2000cc

  42p

  23p

  2001cc and above

  46p

  30p

  Public transport rate

  23.8p per mile

  Motor cycles

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc

  Up to 4,000 miles

  with third party insurance

  14.6p

  22.1p

  with comprehensive insurance

  16.2p

  25.3p

  Over 4,000 miles

  6.1p

  9p

  Pedal cycles

  6.2p per mile

  The Driving Standards Agency figures are:

  Per mile

  Standard Rate

  Up to 1500cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000cc

  Up to 5,000 miles

  35.7p

  42p

  46p

  Over 5,000 miles

  18p

  22p

  30p

  The public transport rate

  23p per mile

  Motor Cycles

  Up to 125cc

  Over 125cc

  Up to 4,000 miles third party insurance

  14.6p

  22.1p

  Comprehensive insurance

  16.2p

  25.3p

  Over 4,000 miles

  6.1p

  9p

  The pedal cycle allowance

  6p per mile

  The Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency figures are:

  Engine size (cc)

  First 5,000 miles

  Over 5,000 miles

  Class A Up to 1500

  35.7p

  18p

  Class B 1500–2000

  42p

  22p

  Class C Over 2000

  46p

  28p

  Public Transport Rate Rail Classes

  23p

  217
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the total cost of travel expenses by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36372]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport, including its agencies, holds no detailed record of this expenditure past the end of each financial year.

  During 1994–95 the spend for the Department's Central Transport Group, together with the Highways Agency, Marine Safety Agency, Coastguard Agency, Vehicle Certification Agency, and Transport Research Laboratory was £1.418 million. If claims had been limited to the lowest level—that is, the public transport rate of 23.8p per mile—the spend would have been £944,000. Disaggregated figures for the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency and Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency are not available.

  Traffic Measures, Newbury
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what detailed studies he undertook into traffic reductions in Newbury in order to alleviate the problems of congestion from local vehicles; [36678]

  (2) what on-the-ground measures he has undertaken to assess the environmental impacts of the Newbury bypass during the review period; [36675]

  (3) what account he has taken of the findings of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 18th report, with particular reference to recommendations 59 and 96, and possibilities and options for traffic reductions in the review of the A34 Newbury bypass and the subsequent decision to proceed with the road; and if he will make a statement. [36677]

  Mr. Watts
  The inspector who held the public inquiry in 1988 agreed with the Department that the bypass would not solve all Newbury's traffic problems, but he did conclude that it would provide sufficient relief to enable local authorities to introduce effective measures to relieve the residual problems.

  The recent study commissioned by my right hon. Friend for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) looked at traffic management—including the measures covered by RCEP recommendation 96—public transport and minimal improvements to the existing road as an alternative to the proposed bypass. The conclusion was that the benefit of such measures were constrained by the limited number of canal/river crossings and the congested junctions at either side. The bypass will allow the space for a new approach to transport and traffic in the town by removing the heavy through traffic.

  The team which carried out the study based its work on existing environmental data collected for the public consultation and the two public inquiries, visiting the site to put this in context. In assessing the information thus collected, the team applied the current environmental assessment procedures set out in the Department of Transport's design manual for roads and bridges.
  218
  RCEP recommendation 59 was considered by the recent study, but the measures that this would involve would force more traffic on to local routes unsuited to heavy traffic, much of which would end up travelling longer distances. If the measures covered by RCEP recommendation 96 were implemented on their own, they could worsen the situation. By removing the through traffic, the bypass will allow the space for a new approach to transport and traffic in the town.

  M25
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if it is possible to construct the additional lanes proposed for the M25 between junctions 14 and 15 without an expansion of the existing curtilage or boundaries of the M25 at this section; [36419]

  (2) for what reasons the proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 13 and 15 announced by him on 3 April exceeds the capacity which the British Airports Authority has said would be sufficient to absorb additional traffic generated by the proposed additional terminal 5 at Heathrow;

  (3) pursuant to his statement of 3 April, Official Report, columns 1391–93, to what extent his traffic forecast for the M25 in the area and approaches to Heathrow airport agrees with the findings of the reassessment following the publication of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report; [36407]

  (4) how the traffic forecast on which he based his decision to plan the widening of the M25 to 10 and 12 lanes over most sections varied from the forecasts previously used in support of the M25 link road scheme, the abandonment of which he announced on 3 April; [36435]

  (5) if he will publish the traffic forecast for the M25 that he used when determining his decision to widen the motorway to 10 and 12 lanes over most sections; [36436]

  (6) to what extent plans for additional motorway lanes proposed between junctions 12 and 16 of the M25 will require a reduction in the widths of the existing lanes or hard shoulder; [36418]

  (7) what remedies or other arrangements he proposes for those people whose properties were covered by the compulsory purchase orders in connection with the defunct scheme for M25 link roads; [36414]

  (8) what were the findings of the reassessment of M25 traffic growth forecasts that stated he would publish after the receipt of the SACTRA report; [36434]

  (9) what factors he intends to take into account when deciding whether to conduct a public inquiry into plans for the additional motorway lanes proposed between junctions 12 and 16 of the M25; [36420]

  (10) what assessment he has made of the effect of a refusal to grant planning permission in respect of BAA's application for Heathrow terminal 5 on the need to widen the M25 between junctions 13 and 15; [36429]

  (11) to what extent the proposal to widen a section of the M25 to 12 and 10 lanes take into account (a) the recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution and (b) the SACTRA report; [36437]
  219
  (12) which sections of the M25 he intends shall not be widened to a standard of eight lanes. [36413]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answers 16 October 1995]: Following the withdrawal of the link road proposals between junctions 12 and 16, the Highways Agency has been assessing the widening schemes to be taken forward in their place. The work undertaken so far indicates that the proposed widening between junctions 12 and 15 be accommodated within the existing highway boundary. Between junctions 15 and 16, the proposals to widen to dual five lanes may require small areas of land outside the highway boundary.

  The proposals, which have yet to be published, are expected to maintain standard lane widths and hard shoulders for most of the distance between junctions 12 and 15. At bridges and over certain lengths where there are restrictions, reductions in lane widths and/or discontinuous hard shoulders are expected to be necessary. Some reduction in widths and loss of hard shoulders are likely to be necessary between junctions 15 and 16 but where existing underbridges are to be widened the opportunity will be taken to reinstate hard shoulders which had earlier been dispensed with.

  Traffic forecasts used to assess the change from link roads to widening were based on the same model and growth factors as the forecasts published in May 1994 with the draft Highway Orders for the then proposed link roads. But the design year adopted for the widening is 15 years from now compared with 2015 for the link roads, for the reasons explained by the Secretary of State in his announcement on 3 April. The contribution of the control motorway pilot was taken into account in determining traffic that could be catered for on this section of the M25 in the period up to 2010. This regulates speeds and sets speed limits according to conditions on the motorway.

  Traffic growth is being reassessed and this includes work to test the effect of the factors identified in the SACTRA report. The Highways Agency is also taking into account the appropriate balance between road building and environmental impact raised by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. The results will be made available when details of the schemes are published.

  There are remedies proposed for those people whose properties were covered by the draft compulsory purchase orders for the link roads. The Highways Agency has offered to pay all reasonable costs incurred from the date of the first notice of the draft orders by the owners of these properties in preparing an objection to the draft orders.

  When the proposals for both widening schemes are published, all the comments received will be considered by the Secretaries of State before a decision on the way forward is taken. They would consider the weight and nature of objections to any draft highway orders in determining the need for an inquiry. Where the widening does not involve draft orders, as is likely between junctions 12 and 15, there is no statutory requirement for a public enquiry.

  The scope of the widening of the M25 between J13 and 15 is governed by the need to reduce congestion on the motorway and provide for the predicted traffic in the next
  220
  15 years, whether or not the fifth terminal at Heathrow airport proceeds. Refusal of planning permission would therefore not alter the proposals for the M25.

  The only sections for which dual four lanes do not exit or for which there are no schemes in the roads programme to widen to dual four lanes are clockwise from junction 28 to junction 3.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for(a) the Shetland maritime rescue co-ordination centre, (b) the Aberdeen maritime rescue co-ordination centre, (c) the Great Yarmouth MRCC, (d) the Dover MRCC, and (e) the Falmouth MRCC and (f) the Humber MRCC the dates in 1995 when the centre was understaffed and an unqualified senior watch officer was on duty; [36671]

  (2) if he will list for the Shetland MRCC from September 1994 to January 1995 inclusive, the dates when the centre was undermanned and when an unqualified senior watch officer was on duty. [35700]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms. Joan Walley, dated 16 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as the questions deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  Questions 2504, 2498, 2492, 2491, 2471 and 2463/94/95 were answered in my reply of 28 september in response to your letter of 23 August, addressed directly to me (copy attached).

  The following information replies to questions 2478 and 2486/94/95.
  Coastguard instructions allow watches which are short by one Regular Watch Officer to be made up by using Auxiliary Coastguard Operations Room Assistants. The figures below show the dates when there was a shortfall on that provision. In many cases the shortfall was not for a full twelve hour watch.

  MRCC ABERDEEN 1995:

  1 Jan-1; 13 Jan-1; 16 Jan-1, 17 Jan-1; 24 Jan-1; 4 Feb-1; 6 Feb-1; 20 Feb-1; 2 Mar-1; 20 Mar-1; 26 Mar-1; 13 Apr-1; 14 Apr-1; 18 Apr-1; 19 Apr-1; 21 Apr-1; 22 Apr-1; 29 Apr-1; 1 May-1; 25 May-1; 29 May-1; 2 Jun-1; 1 Jun-1; 15 Jun-1; 16 Jun–1; 18 Jun-1; 22 Jun-1; 24 Jun-1; 2 Jul-2; 13 Jul-1; 22 Jul-1; 23 Jul-1; 26 Jul-1; 28 Jul–1; 1 Aug—Aug-1 4 Aug-1; 6 Aug-1.

  MRCC Dover

  1 Apr-1; 26 Jun-1; 3 Jul-1; 4 Jul-1; 14 Jul-1; 20 Jul-1; 27 Jul-1; 2 Aug-1.
  During 1995—and for Shetland, from September 1994 to January 1995—there were no shortfalls in the numbers of watchkeepers at the following rescue centres; Shetland; Humber; Yarmouth; Falmouth.
  There have been no occasions when a Coastguard station has been under control of an unqualified Watch Officer. Staff are selected for the post of Senior Watch Officer (SWO) and allocated to rescue centres one per watch. In their absence they are either replaced by another SWO or deputising Watch Officer. A deputising Watch Officer is a Watch Officer who is "qualified" by their initial establishment as Coastguard Officer, having successfuly completed the new entrants process and who has been approved as deputy by the Regional Management. Senior Watch Officer are required to complete a SWO (Qualifier) course run by the Coastguard Training Centre. Successful completion of this course is a perquisite to selection as SWO on a permanent basis. It is not a requirement that a deputy should have passed this course.
  221
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 28 September 1995:

  Thank you for your letter of 23 August requesting information on various aspects of Coastguard Operations.

  1. The number of managers to regular watch keeping staff (Watch Officers and Senior Watch Officers) at each Coastguard Rescue Centre is as follows:

  Rescue Centre

  Senior watch officers and watch officers

  Regional or district management team

  Shetland

  12

  3

  Pentland

  12

  3

  Aberdeen

  19

  5

  Forth

  12

  3

  Tyne Tees

  13

  3

  Humber

  14

  3

  Yarmouth

  15

  5

  Thames

  13

  3

  Dover

  25

  5

  Solent

  18

  3

  Portland

  14

  3

  Brixham

  14

  3

  Falmouth

  16

  6

  Swansea

  18

  5

  Milford Haven

  13

  3

  Holyhead

  12

  3

  Liverpool

  14

  3

  Clyde

  14

  5

  Oban

  12

  3

  Stornoway

  12

  3

  Belfast

  13

  3

  District and Regional Management Teams (DMT/RMT) comprising Station Officers, District Controllers, Regional and Deputy Regional Controllers as well as Coastguard Officers (Senior Watch Officers and Watch Officers) am all "regular staff"; ie, uniformed, professional Coastguards. DMT and RMT members have an active Operations Room role in major emergencies and at any time if required.

  The above figures do not include the 92 regular Sector Officers, nor the Auxiliary Coastguards who keep watch in rescue centres.

  2. The required number of staff in operations rooms are as follows:

  Senior watch officer

  Watch officers

  In each MRCC except Dover

  1

  3

  In each MRSC

  1

  2

  Dover

  11 + 1

  3

  1 At MRCC Dover, each watch is headed, by a Station Officer, in addition to the Senior Watch Officer.

  All New Entrant Coastguards undertake an initial training lasting approximately one year. After a short familiarisation period (usually 6 to 8 weeks) at their parent station, they undertake 6 weeks intensive training at the Training Centre. They then return to their parent station for about nine months, during which time, under the guidance of the District Management Team, they work through a taskbook compiled by the Training Centre. They return to the Training Centre for a two week revision and examination period at the end of the year. Subject to successful completion of the taskbook, the exams, an interview board and management reports, they are appointed Coastguard Watch Officers.

  About two years later they could be ready to take Senior Watch Officer and Sector Officer Qualifying Courses. Passing the examinations on these courses, together with management reports indicating their fitness, qualifies them for selection to these posts.

  Auxiliary Coastguard Operations Room Assistants receive 80 hours initial training locally, culminating in examinations. They receive 20 hours refresher training per annum thereafter.
  222
  3. No rescue centres have close in the last five years. The following sector bases and lookouts have closed in the last five years:

  1991: three (Seaton Sluice, Tyne Tees District) (Maryport and Aberdon lookouts)

  1992: five (Sizewell and Orford, Thames District) (Bass Point, Portland Bill and Whitehaven lookouts)

  1993: one (Polrvan lookout)

  1994: six (Sea Palling, Yarmouth District) (Ives, Gwennap Head, Phyl, Cemaes and Aberdovey lookouts)

  1995: three (Prawle, Peverll Point, Fleetwood lookouts)

  The above does not include the relocation of rescue centres of sector bases in new buildings or the amalgamation or sector bases (there have been 2 of these).

  4. There is no specific limit on overtime other than that applied by the Regional and District Controllers to ensure that individual performance is not compromised.

  5. There have been no occasions when a Coastguard station has been under the control of an unqualified Watch Officer. Staff are selected for the post of Senior Watch Officer (SWO) and allocated to rescue centres one per watch. In their absence they are either replaced by another SWO or a deputising Watch Officer. A deputising Watch Officer is a Watch Officer who is qualified by his or her initial establishment as Coastguard Officer having successfully completed the new entrant's process and who has been approved as deputy by the Regional Management. In order to be selected as SWO on a permanent basis Watch Officers are required to complete a SWO (Qualifier) course run by the Coastguard Training Centre. It is not a requirement that a deputy should have passed this course.

  6. All rescue centres are equipped with rest rooms and comprehensively equipped kitchens. There is not requirement for Officers to sustain a 24 hour shift or to need sleeping accommodation.

  7. The table below shows the average amounts of overtime (in hours per week) for each Region in each of the last five years. The averages include all regular watchkeeping staff, i.e, Senior Watch Officers as well as Watch Officers.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  North and East Scotland

  5.4

  5.3

  5.5

  4.2

  6.8

  Eastern

  4.4

  4.6

  3.9

  3.5

  3.4

  South Eastern

  2.6

  2.8

  2.4

  1.5

  1.9

  South Western

  5.7

  5.8

  4.9

  4.4

  5.1

  Western

  4.5

  4.6

  4.0

  3.8

  3.9

  West of Scotland and Northern Ireland

  8.7

  7.4

  6.7

  3.8

  3.6

  8. The basic watch level at a rescue centre is the watch level required to meet the normal day-to-day operational commitments at that centre.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Costs
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the costs to a household of a child, aged(a) one, (b) eight and (c) 15. [36970]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This information is not available. The cost of a child in any household will inevitably depend on a wide range of factors, including income.
  223

  Compensation Recovery
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will commission an independent review of the responses to the consultation exercise contained in the Government's reply, Cm 2997, to the Social Security Committee's fourth report of 1994–95, HC 196, on compensation recovery, in the same style as the analysis published on the Government measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. [37470]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The consultation exercise on compensation recovery is different in scale and range of groups affected to the exercise concerning measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people. I therefore have no plans to commission an independent review on this occasion.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of all responses to his consultation exercise contained in the Government's reply, Cm 2997, to the Social Security Committee's fourth report of 1994–95, HC 196, on compensation recovery, which do not specifically request that they remain confidential. [37471]

  Mr. Evans
  A summary of the main responses to the consultation exercise will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a list of the individuals and organisations who have been sent copies of the Government's reply, Cm 2997, to The Social Security Committee's fourth report of 1994–95, HC 196 on compensation recovery. [37472]

  Mr. Evans
  I will do so shortly.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many weeks elapsed between the publication of the fourth report from the Social Security Committee of 1994–95, HC196, on compensation recovery, and the publication of the Government's reply, Cm 2997, to that report; how many weeks he has allowed for responses to the consultation exercise on the proposals in Cm 2997, and if he will extend the deadline for receipt of responses to his consultation exercise. [37473]

  Mr. Evans
  The periods are 12 and six weeks respectively. The issues on which the Government are seeking views are closely tied to the Select Committee's central recommendations. When the consultation exercise ends, it is likely that those commenting will have had a total of 18 weeks to form a view on the implications of those recommendations. However, we will consider any reasonable request for an extension to the deadline where the respondent contacts the Department by 13 November.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answers of 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 625, and 27 June 1995, Official Report, column 587, if he will set out the final outturn figures on the operation of the compensation recovery unit for the financial year 1994–95; and if he will give such comparable data as he has available for the current financial year. [37474]

  Mr. Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
  224
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 16 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about information relating to the operation of the Compensation Recovery Unit during the 1994/95 financial year and the first half of the 1995/96 financial year.

  The information is provided in the table below:

  Period

  Number of cases

  Total amount recovered £ million

  Operating costs £ million

  1/4/94-31/3/95

  39,915

  1110.1

  2.8

  1/4/95-30/9/95

  19,874

  161.8

  1.5

  1 These figures includes monies recovered from both final and interim settlements.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support, Derby
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the number of people on income support for the city of Derby and in each of its constituent wards; [37139]

  (2) what is the number of people for whom direct payments are made in respect of (a) gas, (b) electricity and (c) rent and council tax for the city of Derby and in each of its constituent wards. [37140]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 16 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of people receiving Income Support and the numbers for whom direct payments, in respect of gas, electricity, rent and council tax is being made, in the city of Derby and in each of its constituent wards.
  Statistics are maintained on the Income Support live load for each of the Benefit Agency's Districts. These are not co-terminus with the areas covered by Parliamentary Constituencies.
  The Benefits Agency's Central Derbyshire District comprises of the Derby (Becket Street) and Ilkeston offices. The Benefit Agency's South Derbyshire District comprises of the Derby (London Road) and Burton-on-Trent offices.

  At the end of August this year, the figure for the number of people receiving Income Support in the Central Derbyshire District was 33,996. In the South Derbyshire District the figure was 24,527.
  Appendix A provides details of the numbers of people in the Central and South Derbyshire Districts who have their fuel, rent and council tax paid direct from their Income Support. Separate statistics are not kept for gas and electricity.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix A

  Central Derbyshire DO

  August 1995

  District Payment (DP) Load—Fuel

  1,059

  DP Load—Rent arrears/amenity charges

  401

  DP Load—Council Tax

  292

  South Derbyshire DO

  DP Load—Fuel

  1,203

  225

  Appendix A

  Central Derbyshire DO

  August 1995

  DP Load—Rent arrears/amenity charges

  384

  DP Load—Council Tax

  345

  Note:

  Customers may have more than one direct payment.

  This data is provisional and is subject to amendment.

  Benefits Agency Mail
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines govern arrangements agreed between the Benefits Agency and the Post Office for Post Office employees to open mail addressed to the Benefits Agency; how many such arrangements are in place; and what training is provided for Post Office employees covered by such arrangements. [37218]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 16 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the arrangements between the Benefits Agency (BA) and the Post Office to open mail addressed to the BA.
  In taking forward the Governments Competing for Quality initiative, the BA market tested a range of accommodation and office services throughout the country. This included opening and sorting post addressed to BA offices.
  Services were packaged geographically for market testing and, following competitive tender, some of the work was awarded to external suppliers and some retained in-house. Seven of the successful in-house teams have contracted out their post opening services to the Royal Mail.
  The guidelines which govern the arrangements between the Royal Mail and the BA are laid down in the 'Benefits Agency Postal Security Framework'. This covers:

  post receipt,

  post opening,

  post despatch,

  mandatory checks, and

  discretionary checks.

  The guidelines apply to all staff opening BA post, whether this is the BA's own staff, Royal Mail employees or any other external contractor.
  These arrangements are clearly set out for potential bidders in the Invitation to Tender document, and are contained within the contract document between the Royal Mail and the BA.
  Royal Mail staff received a minimum of one weeks initial training from the BA. Additional training is given as and when required to meet the particular needs of individual offices.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date consent was first sought and given for the Benefits Agency to agree arrangements with the Royal Mail for Royal Mail employees to open letters addressed to the Benefits Agency, what specific conditions relating to confidentiality govern such arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [37219]

  Mr. Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  226
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 16 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the date consent was first sought and given for the Benefits Agency (BA) to agree arrangements with the Royal Mail for the opening of post addressed to the BA. You also asked what specific conditions relating to confidentiality governed the arrangements.

  The arrangements for each contract awarded to Royal Mail were approved by the BA's Chief Executive and Department of Social Security Ministers. Approval for the first of these contracts was given on 22 March 1994.

  Confidentiality of information is governed by legislation and the conditions of contract. Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 makes it a criminal offence to disclose personal information provided for Social Security purposes. All staff working for Royal Mail on BA business are required to sign a declaration acknowledging the provisions of Section 123. This is a condition of the contract (Condition 33) between the BA and the Royal Mail.

  Contracts require that mail has to be opened under supervision in separate secure areas within the Royal Mail premises. The accommodation used for post opening is locked at all times and only staff directly involved in the contract are allowed access to the room. The contract further requires that post marked 'private', `confidential' or 'personal' is to be passed to the BA unopened. Sorted mail is put into sealed bags and is delivered to the appropriate BA office for processing.

  I enclose Appendix A which is a copy of Condition 33 of the contract and Appendix B which is a copy of the confidentiality agreement.

  I hope this reply is helpful.
  Appendix A
  33 Confidentiality
  33.1 The Contractor shall:
  (a) treat as confidential all unpublished information which may be derived form or obtained in the course of or in connection with the Contract; and
  (b) take all necessary precautions by contract or otherwise to ensure that all such information is treated as confidential and not disclosed by its employees, servants, agents or sub-contractors.
  33.2 The Authority undertakes to treat as confidential all unpublished information supplied by the Contractor under or in connection with the Contract.
  33.3 The provisions of this Condition shall not apply to any information appertaining to either party which is held in the public domain.
  33.4 Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 shall apply to this Contract. It is an offence for any Person to disclose any information obtained while carrying out the Service, where that information relates to a particular person.
  33.5 The Contractor shall introduce procedures which ensure that only Approved Persons are given any information relating to the Authority's business. These procedures shall be subject to Approval.
  33.6 The Contractor undertakes to store all items, and any personal data or information acquired in connection with the Contract only at Premises specifically Approved in advance.
  Appendix B
  Confidentiality Agreement
  Declaration—To be signed by all Staff prior to being given access to Government information.
  My attention has been drawn to the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 Section 123. I am fully aware of the serious consequences which may follow any breach of this Act.
  I am aware that it is a criminal offence to disclose personal information that has been provided for social security purposes.

  227
  I understand that I will not be free to communicate official information/knowledge acquired in the course of performing the Services, whether written or oral, to anyone who is not authorised to receive such information.
  I realise that upon termination of my contract of employment, I will continue to be bound by the provisions of this Act.
  I understand that this declaration does not extend to information which is in the public domain.

  Signed:

  Surname:

  Forename(s):

  Contractor's Name:

  Date of Agreement:

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision he has made to promote advice to employers via the Child Support Agency on the method of the payment of deductions from earnings orders, which will ensure that parents in care and their children receive the child maintenance due to them with minimum delay; and if he will make a statement. [37050]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 17 October 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the subject of Deduction from Earnings Orders (DEOs).
  When a DEO is issued to an employer it clearly states the amount to be deducted and when this should be paid to the Child Support Agency; it also provides guidance on the methods of payment.
  Additional guidance for employers on DEOs is contained in a Child Support Agency leaflet called "Advice for Employers". I have enclosed a copy of this for you. The Agency also has an enquiry line for employers should they require further information (local rate telephone number 0345 134134) and we hold meetings with employers' representatives and payroll providers.
  We have not identified any general problems or concerns with this method of payment.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been made homeless while awaiting the(a) judgment and (b) appeal of their habitual residence tests as a result of their inability to produce evidence of income while their cases were in progress.

  Mr. Clappison
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is not available centrally.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Transfers between Schools
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the age of transfer between schools in Buckinghamshire. [36002]
  228
  Mr. Paice
  It is for Buckinghamshire local education authority in respect of its schools and for the governing bodies of individual voluntary and grant-maintained schools to publish proposals if they wish to change their age range. My right hon. Friend will consider any such proposals on their merits. My officials stand ready to advise on the technical aspects.

  Hours of Study Limit
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the effect of limiting permitted hours of study by recipients of social security benefits on recruitment in the further education colleges. [36003]

  Mr. Forth
  There has been no change in the permitted number of hours of study by current recipients of benefit. The number of students entering further education courses continues to rise, increasing by 3 per cent. in 1994–95 over the previous year.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the effect on college recruitment of the changes to the 21-hour rule. [36014]

  Mr. Forth
  There is no intention that the introduction of job seeker's allowance in October 1996 will lead to any change in the permitted hours of study by recipients on benefits. The number of students entering further education courses continues to rise, increasing by 3 per cent. in 1994–95 over the previous year.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the progress made in the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance. [36004]

  Mr. Forth
  Work is continuing on the preparations for introducing the jobseeker's allowance.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of the jobseeker's allowance on wage levels. [36017]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobseeker's allowance will help unemployed people to compete effectively for jobs and will therefore contribute to the general improvement in employment prospects that the country is experiencing.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what services will be provided by the Employment Service for those people who are ineligible for jobseeker's allowance and are seeking employment. [37031]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 17 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what services will be provided by the Employment Service (ES) for those people who are ineligible for Job Seekers Allowances (ISA) and are seeking employment.

  229
  There are no plans to change the nature of the services currently available for people who are not claiming benefit.
  The public access employment service including vacancy displays provided by the ES through its network of Jobcentres will continue to be available to people seeking work, irrespective of whether or not they qualify for JSA.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are currently being helped by the assisted places scheme. [36005]

  Mrs. Gillan
  In the school year 1994–95, 29,747 pupils held assisted places under the Department's scheme in England.

  Local Employment and Training Projects
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to encourage local employment and training projects similar to the Allerton outreach team in Bradford. [36006]

  Mr. Paice
  The single regeneration budget challenge fund now enables local people to define their needs and priorities. This year we are providing £125 million to support 200 new projects. Many of these include employment and training objectives.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total number of unemployed people in the United Kingdom. [36007]

  Mr. Forth
  In August, seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment stood at 2,295,000—down by more than half a million since the labour market recovery began.

  Special Needs
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her policy towards the outcomes necessary for young people with special needs on training courses. [36008]

  Mr. Paice
  It is the Government's policy that all young people are given the opportunity to maximise their potential.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools. [36009]

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of pupils who attend grant-maintained schools in the United Kingdom. [36108]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We estimate that more than 660,000 pupils are currently being educated in grant-maintained schools in England. The figure for the United Kingdom as a whole is more than 670,000.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice is given to grant-maintained schools about the operation of schools' admission and exclusion procedures in 230
  relation to Sex Discrimination Acts and Race Relations legislation. [36643]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Guidance is contained in circulars 6/93, "Admissions to Maintained Schools", and 10/94, "Exclusions from School". Copies of both circulars were sent to all maintained schools and have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the requirements on the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools in respect of the process of consultation about proposals to alter admission arrangements. [36641]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department's circular 6/93, "Admissions to Maintained Schools", a copy of which was placed in the Library, advises all admission authorities to take into account local views before changing their admission arrangements.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what capital funds have been provided to grant-maintained schools for emergencies outside the normal annual bidding round; to which schools; and for what purpose in each of the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95. [35811]

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

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school governing bodies were under a duty to consider whether to conduct a parental ballot on grant-maintained status during the 1994–95 school year; how many ballots have been held in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools since 1 September; and, in each case, how many resulted in votes in favour of grant-maintained status and how many resulted in votes against. [35810]

  Mr. Squire
  We estimate that the governing bodies of about 18,200 primary schools and 3,000 secondary schools were under a duty to consider whether to conduct a parental ballot on grant-maintained status during the 1994–95 school year. The overwhelming majority determined that they would not conduct such a ballot. The number of ballots held and their outcome during the same period is as follows:

  Type of school

  Number of ballots held

  Number of ballots in favour

  Number of ballots against

  Primary

  59

  37

  22

  Secondary

  26

  13

  13

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the most significant finding she has made since assuming the duties of the Department of Employment. [36010]

  Mr. Forth
  That the integration of policies for education and employment will increase Britain's competitiveness by raising education and skills levels,
  231
  advancing knowledge and promoting a flexible and efficient labour market—in particular, by providing a single focus on young people in the crucial years between 14 and 19.

  Nursery Education Vouchers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local authorities have so far volunteered to take part in phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme. [36011]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  As I announced earlier, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth, and Westminster have confirmed their decision to take part in the first phase of the voucher scheme, beginning in April 1996.

  I hope to add to this list in the near future.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, in respect of the provision for providers to borrow capital for premises against the value of voucher income, who she envisages will underwrite such loans. [36152]

  Mr. Squire
  As the Secretary of State previously stated, we envisage that borrowing or similar arrangements will take place on the strength of the anticipated voucher income. Any additional underwriting of the loans will be a matter for negotiation in the normal commercial way.

  Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement regarding the operation of the modern apprenticeship scheme. [36012]

  Mr. Paice
  Modern apprenticeships are now available in more than 50 sectors. Many employers are offering places nationwide and recruitment of young people for this year's intake is well under way.

  School Transport (Finance)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to compel local authorities to finance the cost of transport of children to grammar schools. [36013]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to change the current statutory position whereby local education authorities have a duty to provide free transport to the nearest suitable school for pupils who live beyond the designated walking distances.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of school leavers in England go on to higher and further education.

  Mr. Forth
  Almost 80 per cent. of 16-year-olds go on to further education. Approaching 30 per cent. of young people enter full-time higher education.

  Internet
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give details of her 232
  Department's initiatives to augment public access to Internet information and training. [36016]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The UK Education Departments' super-highways initiative was launched earlier this year. As part of this, our consultation paper "Superhighways for Education" considered the use of network connections, including the Internet, in all sectors of education and sought views widely. We shall be announcing the outcome later this year, including plans to evaluate a series of projects piloting innovative communication technologies in education. Work is also in progress on the potential of super-highways to deliver training.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements and practice of statementing of children suffering from attention deficit disorder and similar conditions in schools; and if he will make a statement; [36655]

  (2) if she will examine what measures could be put in place to equip schools to deal more effectively with children suffering from attention deficit disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; [36649]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the significance of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in explaining withdrawal of children from state education in favour of home tuition; and if she will make a statement. [36650]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 24 January 1995,Official Report, columns 166–67 and on 26 June 1995, Official Report, columns 503–4.

  Pupil Medication
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines and controls exist regarding decisions by head teachers on the giving of medication in schools; and if she will make a statement. [36653]

  Mr. Forth
  Many schools and local education authorities already have policies on giving medication in schools. The Department is currently consulting on general guidance for LEAs, schools and teachers on managing children with a range of medical conditions, including administering medication. It is intended that this guidance will draw together much of the good practice already followed by some schools and LEAs.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his her Department's latest estimate of the number of children in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in England and Wales that are being taught in classes of over 30 pupils. [35997]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of pupils in England in single-teacher classes of 31 pupils over in January 1995 was just under 1.2 million in maintained primary schools and 201,000 in maintained secondary schools.

  Information on class sizes in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  233
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage, and how many primary school pupils were in classes of more than 30 in January in each local education authority and in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority in England: 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  1994

  1995 (provisional)

  Change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  City

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  542

  6.1

  605

  6.7

  63

  11.6

  Greenwich

  2,301

  13.3

  2,555

  14.5

  254

  11.0

  Hackney

  499

  3.7

  569

  4.0

  70

  14.0

  Hammersmith

  795

  11.1

  1,294

  16.6

  499

  62.8

  Islington

  892

  6.9

  1,055

  8.1

  163

  18.3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  454

  9.0

  221

  4.5

  -233

  -51.3

  Lambeth

  816

  5.2

  540

  3.4

  -276

  -33.8

  Lewisham

  1,318

  7.2

  1,192

  6.4

  -126

  -9.6

  Southwark

  2,331

  12.3

  2,483

  12.7

  152

  6.5

  Tower Hamlets

  638

  4.9

  778

  5.1

  140

  21.9

  Wandsworth

  1,666

  11.8

  1,459

  10.3

  -207

  -12.4

  Westminster

  428

  5.9

  646

  9.4

  218

  50.9

  Barking

  1,415

  9.9

  1,317

  8.7

  -98

  -6.9

  Barnet

  2,434

  11.6

  2,291

  10.9

  -143

  -5.9

  Bexley

  5,910

  32.0

  7,834

  39.2

  1,924

  32.6

  Brent

  2,157

  11.4

  2,444

  13.0

  287

  13.3

  Bromley

  10,385

  47.5

  11,596

  51.8

  1,211

  11.7

  Croydon

  4,896

  20.5

  5,973

  23.7

  1,077

  22.0

  Ealing

  4,146

  20.3

  4,137

  19.2

  -9

  -0.2

  Enfield

  7,237

  35.4

  8,192

  39.7

  955

  13.2

  Haringey

  732

  4.3

  1,045

  6.0

  313

  42.8

  Harrow

  3,544

  22.6

  4,152

  25.5

  608

  17.2

  Havering

  4,176

  22.1

  4,662

  24.1

  486

  11.6

  Hillingdon

  4,896

  27.5

  4,833

  26.4

  -63

  -1.3

  Hounslow

  5,319

  33.5

  5,691

  34.1

  372

  7.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,484

  57.9

  6,216

  64.0

  732

  13.3

  Merton

  3,114

  25.3

  3,299

  26.2

  185

  5.9

  Newham

  1,317

  6.0

  2,680

  11.3

  1,363

  103.5

  Redbridge

  8,456

  52.8

  8,337

  51.5

  -119

  -1.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,134

  11.4

  2,040

  20.4

  906

  79.9

  Sutton

  4,696

  40.1

  4,328

  35.7

  -368

  -7.8

  Waltham Forest

  3,200

  18.4

  3,330

  18.8

  130

  4.1

  Birmingham

  27,164

  28.4

  28,251

  29.2

  1,087

  4.0

  Coventry

  5,541

  21.9

  7,875

  29.4

  2,334

  42.1

  Dudley

  7,497

  31.1

  6,935

  28.5

  -562

  -7.5

  Sandwell

  10,175

  37.5

  10,815

  39.1

  640

  6.3

  Solihull

  6,711

  36.9

  7,506

  40.3

  795

  11.8

  Walsall

  5,577

  25.1

  6,428

  27.9

  851

  15.3

  Wolverhampton

  5,155

  24.1

  5,846

  26.8

  691

  13.4

  Knowsley

  5,915

  34.8

  6,300

  34.7

  385

  6.5

  Liverpool

  12,620

  26.6

  12,541

  27

  -79

  -0.6

  St. Helens

  5,437

  37.5

  5,507

  37.4

  70

  1.3

  Sefton

  8,258

  33.7

  8,793

  35.1

  535

  6.5

  Wirral

  5,928

  20.4

  6,076

  20.7

  148

  2.5

  Bolton

  9,046

  41.0

  10,366

  45.9

  1,320

  14.6

  Bury

  6,239

  40.0

  6,434

  41.1

  195

  3.1

  Manchester

  9,619

  23.4

  10,211

  24.2

  592

  6.2

  Oldham

  8,617

  41.1

  8,823

  41.0

  206

  2.4

  Rochdale

  8,020

  43.8

  8,102

  41.8

  82

  1.0

  Salford

  6,817

  30.6

  6,975

  30.8

  158

  2.3

  Stockport

  8,179

  33.8

  7,858

  31.8

  -321

  -3.9

  Tameside

  12,079

  56.4

  11,291

  51.8

  -788

  -6.5

  Trafford

  9,151

  49.6

  9,689

  51.1

  538

  5.9

  Wigan

  9,997

  38.2

  11,375

  42.7

  1,378

  13.8

  Barnsley

  5,656

  28.3

  6,201

  30.9

  545

  9.6

  Doncaster

  7,548

  28.4

  8,338

  31.7

  790

  10.5

  Rotherham

  2,569

  11.5

  3,269

  14.4

  700

  27.2

  Sheffield

  8,281

  21.9

  11,119

  28.3

  2,838

  34.3

  Bradford

  8,781

  27.3

  10,707

  32.4

  1,926

  21.9

  Calderdale

  5,268

  30.1

  5,666

  30.9

  398

  7.6

  Kirklees

  9,372

  29.9

  12,290

  38.2

  2,918

  31.1

  234
  numbers compared with January 1994 in each local education authority and in total. [36759]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  235

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local educationauthority in England: 1994 and 1995 (provisional)

  1994

  1995 (provisional)

  Change

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage2

  Leeds

  19,405

  32.7

  21,245

  35.1

  1,840

  9.5

  Wakefield

  9,996

  37.0

  10,544

  37.8

  548

  5.5

  Gateshead

  1,862

  11.2

  2,237

  13.2

  375

  20.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  5,843

  28.5

  6,744

  33.1

  901

  15.4

  North Tyneside

  3,905

  26.0

  4,930

  32.7

  1,025

  26.2

  South Tyneside

  3,456

  23.9

  3,616

  24.7

  160

  4.6

  Sunderland

  4,244

  16.2

  3,601

  13.5

  -643

  -15.2

  Isles of Scilly

  31

  18.5

  0

  0.0

  -31

  -100.0

  Avon

  26,753

  35.5

  26,919

  34.5

  166

  0.6

  Bedfordshire

  9,064

  24.4

  10,328

  26.7

  1,264

  13.9

  Berkshire

  16,290

  28.9

  15,605

  26.8

  -685

  -4.2

  Buckingshamshire

  19,072

  33.3

  21,205

  35.6

  2,133

  11.2

  Cambridgeshire

  15,079

  27.2

  14,946

  26.8

  -133

  -0.9

  Cheshire

  30,193

  36.2

  30,315

  35.5

  122

  0.4

  Cleveland

  13,386

  23.2

  13,859

  23.7

  473

  3.5

  Cornwall

  13,441

  35.1

  14,004

  35.6

  563

  4.2

  Cumbria

  9,385

  24.2

  11,452

  29.0

  2,067

  22.0

  Derbyshire

  29,982

  39.9

  32,959

  42.7

  2,977

  9.9

  Devon

  21,175

  27.3

  23,659

  29.8

  2,484

  11.7

  Dorset

  18,142

  44.0

  18,038

  42.8

  -104

  -0.6

  Durham

  15,012

  28.9

  15,455

  29.5

  443

  3.0

  East Sussex

  19,297

  40.7

  19,691

  40.8

  394

  2.0

  Essex

  30,729

  25.8

  31,875

  25.8

  1,146

  3.7

  Gloucestershire

  11,123

  26.5

  11,595

  26.7

  472

  4.2

  Hampshire

  44,304

  34.2

  43,976

  33.9

  -328

  -0.7

  Hereford and Worcester

  9,910

  21.1

  10,533

  21.8

  623

  6.3

  Hertfordshire

  21,344

  27.7

  23,054

  29.0

  1,710

  8.0

  Humberside

  25,914

  33.4

  26,896

  33.8

  982

  3.8

  Isle of Wight

  1,862

  26.6

  1,860

  26.4

  -2

  -0.1

  Kent

  41,570

  33.6

  44,208

  34.4

  2,638

  6.3

  Lancashire

  45,112

  38.5

  48,832

  40.4

  3,720

  8.2

  Leicestershire

  14,433

  20.2

  17,567

  23.6

  3,134

  21.7

  Lincolnshire

  12,642

  26.6

  14,632

  29.8

  1,990

  15.7

  Norfolk

  11,175

  19.5

  12,066

  20.5

  891

  8.0

  North Yorkshire

  13,702

  24.8

  17,758

  31.3

  4,056

  29.6

  Northamptonshire

  9,590

  20.6

  10,576

  21.9

  986

  10.3

  Northumberland

  7,901

  41.4

  8,030

  41.8

  129

  1.6

  Nottinghamshire

  19,947

  24.2

  23,142

  27.8

  3,195

  16.0

  Oxfordshire

  5,850

  15.3

  6,422

  16.4

  572

  9.8

  Shropshire

  9,085

  27.2

  9,972

  29.0

  887

  9.8

  Somerset

  10,476

  30.1

  10,776

  30.1

  300

  2.9

  Staffordshire

  30,738

  35.3

  31,147

  35.3

  409

  1.3

  Suffolk

  5,608

  13.8

  6,396

  15.1

  788

  14.1

  Surrey

  13,741

  20.2

  12,118

  17.7

  -1623

  -11.8

  Warwickshire

  12,740

  30.6

  13,980

  32.9

  1,240

  9.7

  West Sussex

  10,934

  21.6

  12,879

  24.2

  1,945

  17.8

  Wiltshire

  12,185

  26.5

  14,703

  31.0

  2,518

  20.7

  England

  1,076,173

  28.2

  1,155,726

  29.6

  79,553

  7.4

  1 Pupils in single teacher classes of 31 and over expressed as a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  2 Change in the number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher between 1994 and 1995 expressed as a percentage of pupils in classses of 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher in 1994.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many public interest immunity certificates her Department has issued in each year since 1986. [36691]

  Mr. Forth
  One certificate was issued in 1991 and one in 1992 in civil court cases to which the then Secretary of State for Education was a party.

  Travel Allowances
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what rates of travel allowance
  236
  may be claimed by civil servants in her Department when using their vehicles for official business. [36353]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Two rates are payable depending on the circumstances of the journey involved. The public transport rate is 23p to 23.8p per mile. The standard mileage rate is 35.7p to 46p per mile up to the first 5,000 miles and 18p to 30p per mile thereafter, depending on engine size.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in her Department; and what would have been the saving
  237
  in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36354]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the average expenditure per primary school and per secondary school pupil of(a) all London boroughs, (b) all metropolitan counties and (c) all other English and Welsh counties. [36773]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out for each local education authority in England and Wales the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA-maintained pre-primary/primary and secondary schools for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Cost per pupil in LEA-maintained schools

  1993–94

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil

  Pre-primary/primary £

  Secondary £

  London boroughs

  Corporation of London

  3,587

  0

  Camden

  2,047

  2,716

  Greenwich

  2,009

  2,583

  Hackney

  1,958

  2,617

  Hammersmith

  2,534

  3,329

  Islington

  2,719

  3,005

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,394

  3,266

  Lambeth

  2,666

  3,296

  Lewisham

  2,058

  2,614

  Southwark

  1,806

  2,421

  Tower Hamlets

  2,656

  3,157

  Wandsworth

  2,139

  2,795

  Westminster

  2,592

  2,739

  Barking

  1,790

  2,355

  Barnet

  2,006

  2,952

  Bexley

  1,573

  2,341

  Brent

  1,633

  1,835

  Bromley

  1,525

  2,280

  Croydon

  1,793

  2,309

  Ealing

  1,915

  2,575

  Enfield

  1,768

  2,531

  Haringey

  2,236

  3,041

  Harrow

  1,913

  2,439

  Havering

  1,636

  2,290

  Hillingdon

  1,804

  2,670

  Hounslow

  1,935

  2,405

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,728

  2,284

  Merton

  1,853

  2,463

  Newham

  1,708

  2,563

  Redbridge

  1,640

  2,526

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,794

  2,280

  Sutton

  1,639

  1,978

  Waltham Forest

  1,821

  2,526

  Metropolitan counties

  Birmingham

  1,572

  2,330

  Coventry

  1,684

  2,469

  Dudley

  1,490

  2,098

  Sandwell

  1,681

  2,349

  Solihull

  1,574

  2,217

  Walsall

  1,672

  2,281

  Wolverhampton

  1,357

  2,300

  Knowsley

  1,485

  2,243

  Liverpool

  1,586

  2,613

  St. Helens

  1,605

  2,315

  238

  Cost per pupil in LEA-maintained schools

  1993–94

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil

  Pre-primary/primary £

  Secondary £

  Sefton

  1,448

  2,204

  Wirral

  1,552

  2,299

  Bolton

  1,581

  2,119

  Bury

  1,432

  1,979

  Manchester

  1,547

  2,328

  Oldham

  1,645

  2,278

  Rochdale

  1,307

  1,974

  Salford

  1,505

  2,215

  Stockport

  1,466

  2,310

  Tameside

  1,442

  2,095

  Trafford

  1,428

  2,156

  Wigan

  1,437

  2,141

  Barnsley

  1,539

  2,101

  Doncaster

  1,425

  2,022

  Rotherham

  1,723

  2,271

  Sheffield

  1,573

  2,119

  Bradford

  1,654

  1,969

  Calderdale

  1,607

  2,162

  Kirklees

  1,579

  2,207

  Leeds

  1,647

  2,164

  Wakefield

  1,577

  2,150

  Gateshead

  1,664

  2,252

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,697

  2,187

  North Tyneside

  1,469

  1,995

  South Tyneside

  1,463

  1,948

  Sunderland

  1,509

  2,114

  Other counties

  Avon

  1,571

  2,288

  Bedfordshire

  1,639

  2,103

  Berkshire

  1,592

  2,214

  Buckinghamshire

  1,735

  2,286

  Cambridgeshire

  1,534

  1,956

  Cheshire

  1,483

  2,106

  Cleveland

  1,461

  2,129

  Cornwall

  1,535

  2,160

  Cumbria

  1,667

  2,216

  Derbyshire

  1,600

  2,214

  Devon

  1,503

  2,157

  Dorset

  1,485

  2,065

  Durham

  1,664

  2,114

  East Sussex

  1,643

  2,270

  Essex

  1,724

  2,286

  Gloucestershire

  1,523

  2,084

  Hampshire

  1,583

  2,180

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,617

  2,038

  Hertfordshire

  1,664

  2,245

  Humberside

  1,621

  2,257

  Isles of Scilly

  2,401

  4,415

  Isle of Wight

  1,598

  2,027

  Kent

  1,397

  2,079

  Lancashire

  1,669

  2,347

  Leicestershire

  1,629

  2,263

  Lincolnshire

  1,496

  2,322

  Norfolk

  1,585

  2,309

  North Yorkshire

  1,555

  2,187

  Northamptonshire

  1,522

  2,125

  Northumberland

  1,686

  2,083

  Nottinghamshire

  1,653

  2,381

  Oxfordshire

  1,765

  2,191

  Shropshire

  1,577

  2,354

  Somerset

  1,583

  2,138

  Staffordshire

  1,534

  2,078

  Suffolk

  1,673

  2,190

  Surrey

  1,701

  2,215

  Warwickshire

  1,555

  2,420

  West Sussex

  1,579

  2,467

  Wiltshire

  1,521

  2,379

  England

  1,630

  2,245

  239

  Cost per pupil in LEA-maintained schools

  1993–94

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil

  Pre-primary/primary £

  Secondary £

  Welsh counties1

  Clywd

  1,534

  2,357

  Dyfed

  1,859

  2,258

  Gwent

  1,531

  2,363

  Gwynedd

  1,725

  2,503

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,626

  2,427

  Powys

  1,782

  2,224

  South Glamorgan

  1,552

  2,228

  West Glamorgan

  1,854

  2,592

  Wales

  1,657

  2,375

  1 1992–93 at constant 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average unit cost per pupil for part-time provision in(a) nursery schools, (b) nursery classes in primary schools and (c) playgroups, at the latest available date. [36175]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows estimates of unit costs in maintained schools for 1993–94, based on the assumption that part-time pupils attend for half the normal attendance time of full-time pupils, and, on average, cost half as much as a full-time pupil.

  1993–94 estimated unit costs £

  Full-time equivalent

  Part-time (50 per cent.)

  Nursery school

  3,250

  1,625

  Nursery class in primary school

  2,660

  1,330

  Note:

  Because expenditure returns do not distinguish spending on nursery schools and classes from other primary school spending, the figures above are estimates based on apportionment of total expenditure.

  Unit costs in play groups are not collected centrally.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to promote the equal treatment of women. [35891]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government will continue to promote the interests of women at work, in education and beyond, and to promote effective equality of opportunity at work. In addition to a strong legislative base, this policy has meant that the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of women's unemployment in the European Union, and that the gap between men's and women's earnings continues to narrow.

  Dance Education
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to reach a decision on the future of discretionary awards for dance education. [37169]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government are continuing to review this issue. Any plans for change would be announced to Parliament in the usual way.
  240

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many postgraduate students during the current academic year received the maximum contribution towards their bills; and what percentage this was of the total number of post-graduates; [37303]

  (2) what proportion of British postgraduate students during the last academic year received a state grant for maintenance. [37249]

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  In the academic year 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, there were 43,800 postgraduate award holders in the United Kingdom—22 per cent. of the postgraduate population. Information on the level of maintenance paid is not collected by the Department for all these award holders.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, how many postgraduate students during the last academic year received support from access funds; and what was the average level of support. [37250]

  Mr. Forth
  Information for the last academic year will be available later in the year.

  During the academic year 1993–94, 9,267 postgraduate students at higher education institutions in England received support from the access funds. On average, these students receive £463 each.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what estimate her Department has of the average amount of the careers development loans currently held by postgraduates. [37254]

  Mr. Forth
  The average loan amount for career development loans approved for postgraduates currently in training is £4,429.39.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of British postgraduates during the last academic year paid their own tuition fees. [37302]

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for the academic year 1994–95 show that at 31 December 1995 there were 231,000 United Kingdom-domiciled postgraduates—full time and part time in UK higher education institutions, including the Open university, of whom 35 per cent. paid their own tuition fees.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what estimate her Department has of the number of postgraduate students in British universities during the last academic year; and what proportion of these students were British born and educated. [37301]

  Mr. Forth
  Figures for the academic year 1994–95 show that at 31 December 1995, there were 290,000 full-time and part-time postgraduate students in United Kingdom higher education institutions, including the Open university, of which 80 per cent. were domiciled in the UK.
  241

  Public Access Job-broking Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the future of the public access job-broking service; how many stand-alone offices providing such a service were in use in(a)(b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995; and if she will list the year of closure of each office and its location. [37205]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 17 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the future of the public access job broking service and the stand alone offices providing such a service.
  We do not maintain detailed records concerning the numbers of offices although I am able to advise that at the start of the project in 1989/90 to integrate our benefit offices and Jobcentres, the Employment Service (ES) had a total of 1,800 offices. By the end of 1990, 300 integrated offices had been opened. This number has risen to 950 by September this year. The total number of offices is currently 1,124.
  It is expected that the public access job broking service will continue to be provided by the ES as at present. The current system is geared to the needs of unemployed people, particularly those at a disadvantage in the labour market. It is also used by people seeking to change work, including those facing redundancy.
  The service will be enhanced by a new computer system, the Labour Market System (LMS), which is being piloted in some Jobcentres at present. National implementation of LMS is scheduled to take place during 1996.
  LMS will, for the first time, give Jobcentre people access to client, job opportunities, programme and other information via one computer system. This will enable us to provide a more professional service to all our clients, through for example, searching for suitable vacancies or opportunities quickly and easily.

  Availability for Work Rules
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance and instructions apply in respect of people deemed capable of work under the all-work test when such people are unable to work full time as defined by the availability for work regulations. [37026]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 17 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about what guidance and instructions apply in respect of people deemed capable of work under the all work test when such people are unable to work full time as defined by the availability for work regulations.
  It may help if I explain that the receipt of unemployment benefits is conditional upon a person being available for and actively seeking employment. This means that they must be available to start work immediately; must not place such restrictions on the work they are willing to do which would leave them with no real prospects of finding a job and must take those steps, each week, which offer them their best prospects of obtaining work.
  242
  Unemployed clients are not required to work full-time. Indeed there is no definition of "full-time" in the unemployment benefit regulations. However they must be available to work some hours every day they claim benefit.
  If a client imposes restrictions on any of the conditions of employment they are willing to accept, they may nevertheless satisfy the availability for work condition provided they have reasonable prospects of getting a job within those restrictions. However, if a client with health problems or disability imposes restrictions, and those restrictions are reasonable in view of their physical and, or, mental condition, they do not have to satisfy the requirement of having reasonable prospects.
  People who have been deemed capable of work as a result of the all work test for incapacity benefit and who subsequently claim unemployment benefits, are seen by one of my client advisers. I recognise that people who have been taken off incapacity benefit may need specialist help to get back to work. In addition to the extra programmes and opportunities introduced for these clients, I have also issued my advisers with additional guidance to help them understand the problems faced by these clients, many of whom will have been out of the labour market for some time. As well as informing clients about jobs and other opportunities open to them, my people will agree with them the type of work they can reasonably be expected to do. My advisers will also explain the availability and actively seeking employment conditions and advise clients what they must do in order to satisfy these conditions.
  If an adviser decides that a client needs more specialised help, they may refer them to a Disability Employment Adviser who is specially trained to advise people with health problems or disability which may affect their ability to get, and hold down, a job.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobcentre, Kings Norton
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what current plans there are to open an Employment Service jobcentre in Kings Norton, Birmingham. [37032]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Dr. Lynne Jones, Dated 17 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding any current plans to open an Employment Service Jobcentre in Kings Norton, Birmingham.
  The Employment Service has no plans at present to open a Jobcentre in Kings Norton itself. At present unemployed clients who live in the Kings Norton catchment area are handled by Selly Oak Employment Service Jobcentre.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Employment Service Staff
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what reductions in staffing levels in the Employment Service are planned in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; and how many of these are as a result of targeted efficiency savings arising from the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance; [37030]

  (2) what is the planned number of staff to be transferred from the Employment Service to the Benefits Agency to administer the jobseeker's allowance. [37029]
  243
  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 17 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the planned staffing levels in the Employment Services (ES) over the next four years and the expected numbers who will transfer from ES to the Benefit Agency (BA) to process Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) payments.
  The latest estimates available of staffing in the ES over the years in question are contained in the Employment Department's 1995 Departmental Report, a copy of which is in the library. As at March 1995, the estimates for staffing in 1996–97 were 40,960 and 39,148 in 1997–98. No estimate was made for 1998–99.
  These figures are being looked at again as part of this year's Public Expenditure Survey and are likely to change, particularly because under the JSA responsibility for paying unemployment benefits will transfer from the ES to BA. This will help streamline the administrative process. However, there is no target for specific efficiency savings in staff numbers as a result of the introduction of the JSA.
  Currently, within the JSA Project, design work is being done on the business processes for its implementation, Each business process details the activities which need to be done in order to complete a specific task, for example Taking a New Claim from a Jobseeker.
  From these business processes, we will be able to assess the number of people required to transfer from ES to BA to process payment of JSA. This area of work is ongoing and numbers have yet to be finalised.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the number of (i) male and (ii) female employees, (b) the number of officials employed at each of the principal grades and the numbers and percentages of women employed at these grades and (c) the number of staff employed at administrative grades and the number and percentages of these staff that are women, in her Department and for each of the executive agencies for each year since 1985. [35683]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 19 July 1995]: Figures for the former Employment Department Group and its executive agency, the Employment Service, can be found in table 5 of "Civil Service Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library. Figures for 1995 will be published later this year.

  Figures for the former Department for Education, which are not shown separately in "Civil Service Statistics", are set out in the table for 1993 to 1995. Figures for previous years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Head Teacher Training
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures exist for ensuring that training providers measure up to the standards envisaged in head teacher training. [36270]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will ask the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency to write to the hon. Member about the quality assurance procedures applied to Headlamp training providers.
  244
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what advice she decides the training needs of newly qualified head teachers. [36274]

  Mr. Squire
  The Headlamp scheme allows governors and head teachers to decide the specific training needs to be met under the scheme. I will ask the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency to write to the hon. Member about the general Headlamp criteria.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what organisations her Department plans to involve in the Headlamp scheme; and what expertise each brings to this work; [36284]

  (2) how many teachers she expects to take part in the Headlamp scheme in its first year of operation; [36294]

  (3) of those teachers taking part in Headlamp during its first year how many (a) are practising head teachers and (b) are practising deputy heads; [36295]

  (4) what consultation has taken place with (a) teacher unions, (b) school governors or bodies representing them and (c) parents and bodies representing them in developing the Headlamp programme. [36271]

  Mr. Squire
  The development and management of Headlamp is a matter for the Teacher Training Agency. I will ask the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, what is the expected cost of the Headlamp scheme in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and what was the budgetary provision for the training of head teachers in 1994–95. [36292]

  Mr. Squire
  In the grant for education support and training programme for 1994–95, £1.3 million was made available for head teacher mentoring. Schools and local education authorities could also support headteacher training from the separate GEST support for school management, totalling £22.4 million. In the GEST programme for 1995–96, these are covered by school effectiveness grant, which supports expenditure of £121.5 million. Grant-maintained schools may use special purpose grant (development) to pay for head teacher training. I will ask the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency to write to the hon. Member about the expected cost of Headlamp.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, on what criteria she decides the training needs of newly qualified head teachers. [36275]

  Mr. Squire
  The Headlamp scheme allows governors and head teachers to decide the specific training needs to be met under the scheme. I will ask the chairman of the Teacher Training Agency to write to the hon. Member about the general Headlamp criteria.

  School Advertising
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what rules exist governing the use of broadcast advertising by schools seeking to attract pupils to enrol. [36173]
  245
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Schools are not prohibited from broadcast advertising and educational services in general are not unacceptable under the Independent Television Commission code. But any advertisements for schools would be subject to the same rules as apply to all other advertisements under the code.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the rental charges and associated costs on her Department's premises, Sanctuary Buildings, Great Smith street. [35777]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the current financial year, the rental charges and associated costs amount to £12.9 million.

  Students with Disabilities
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many physically disabled people there are over(a) 18 and (b) 30 years of age currently engaged in higher or further education. [36141]

  Mr. Forth
  Provisional estimates for 1994–95 indicate that 44,200 students with all types of learning difficulties and/or disabilities aged 18 or over, were engaged in further education. Of these, 26,500 were aged 30 or over. Specific information on the numbers of students with physical disabilities is not collected centrally. Information on the numbers of such students in higher education is currently not held centrally.

  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for 246
  Education and Employment when she expects the Further Education Funding Council to publish a definitive policy for physically disabled students; and if she will make a statement on her policy in this area. [36140]

  Mr. Forth
  The Further Education Funding Council has established its learning difficulties and/or disabilities committee to advise the council on how it can best fulfil its legal responsibilities towards students with learning difficulties and disabilities. The committee will report to the FEFC in 1996. The FEFC has published its policy about provision for students with disabilities in a number of circulars.

  The Government's policy is that learning difficulty or disability should not be a bar to access to further education. The provisions in education legislation governing further education for people with disabilities are comprehensive, covering the complementary responsibilities of the FEFC, local education authorities and educational institutions. They recognise the requirement to make available further education which is appropriate to the needs of individual students, in an accessible setting with associated support.

  The Government plan to build on these provisions through the current Disability Discrimination Bill by placing a duty on the FEFC to require further education sector colleges, as a condition of grant, to produce disability statements outlining their provisions for disabled students. The FEFC will also be required annually to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on its progress to date and future plans for the provision of further education for students with disabilities.

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

Temazepam
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept that the sleeping pill Temazepam can become dangerous when combined with alcohol and other substances; and whether they have any further plans to reclassify the drug.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 12th September that Temazepam will be reclassified and in future it will be a criminal offence to possess the drug without authority. Pharmacies will be required to store the drug more securely and licences will be required for exports and imports. Today my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will be announcing that GPs are to he banned from prescribing Temazepam capsules on the NHS.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her welcome reply. Can she confirm that possession of the drug without a prescription will he treated severely? Also, is my noble friend aware, following her last statement, that GPs in the areas where misuse of this drug has been most prevalent are reported to be in favour of a complete ban because of the numbers of deaths connected with it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government take illegal possession of any drug extremely seriously. As this drug has been reclassified, normal sanctions will be taken against those who are in possession of it without a prescription.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Glasgow, which I recently visited, the melting down and injecting of jellified Temazepam blocks the veins and causes terrible problems which result in amputation and death? Glasgow would like to see the jellified version banned altogether.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we share the anxieties of the noble Baroness. That is why from today the jellified form—that is, the capsules—will be banned.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that although National Health Service practitioners are banned from prescribing the jellified form of Temazepam, private practitioners are not proscribed from prescribing? Perhaps the noble Baroness will give her comments on that point.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, from today it will be illegal to prescribe in any form, privately or on the NHS, the capsule form of Temazepam.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one doctor said of this dangerous mixture, "It makes you feel fearless; it disinhibits violence and it diminishes anxiety; your brain no longer functions and you do foolish things"? Should there not be in future compulsory testing for this drug of those attending all the party conferences?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think some of us on the Front Bench could do with a shot of Temazepam occasionally.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, while accepting that the Government are trying to control Temazepam through the supply of the drug, can the Minister assure us that the Government will take equally positive action to try to reduce the demand particularly among teenagers where it is becoming rife?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, Temazepam in its tablet form and in what is described as an "elixir" form—that is, a liquid form—is one of the most commonly prescribed sleeping aids for all age groups. We shall be issuing guidance shortly to the professions, particularly GPs, on general Benzodiazepine prescribing. We are convinced that in some cases it is inappropriate.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what advice can my noble friend give to those patients who have Temazepam, unused for a number of months, still at the back of the medicine cabinet?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, they should return it to the chemist.

Grant-Maintained Schools
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their present policy on grant-maintained schools.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, grant-maintained status is the best route for ensuring good management and high standards in schools. We are considering ways of extending the benefits of self-government to all schools and will be consulting shortly on means of smoothing the path to self-government for Church schools.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister recall the Prime Minister saying during the Recess that his aim is for all schools to be grant maintained? It may have been a touch of summer madness. As, after four years, only 1,100 schools out of 24,000 have chosen to opt out, following incentives amounting to millions of pounds, will the Government give a firm assurance that they will not dispense with ballots?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated quite clearly that it was his ambition to see all schools benefit from the advantages that accrue from having self-governing status. He then said that he hoped that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and the department could look at ways of achieving that policy. For the moment grant-maintained status remains voluntary but we believe, and the Prime Minister believes, that the benefits of GM status are so great that they could and should be extended, where possible, to all schools.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that under the proposed changes the parents of children in Church schools will be able to express their views about any proposals for GM status in exactly the same way as the parents of children in non-Church schools? Does the Minister agree that in many cases the Church authorities, the governors and the parents are of the opinion that the good relationship that exists between local education authorities and Church authorities should be respected and maintained and not smoothed away, to use the Minister's euphemism?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe I used a euphemism. We believe that there are terrific advantages in all schools having the benefit of grant-maintained status. The Prime Minister made it clear that he would look first of all at voluntary-aided schools. I mentioned those in my introductory Answer We are looking at possible ways of fast-tracking that process for Church schools. I shall not give any assurances one way or the other about what process we shall pursue when we have reviewed the matter but we believe that there are considerable advantages for Church schools and for other schools in pursuing this process.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the whole grant-maintained initiative is waning seriously already—1,100 out 24,000 after all this time—because, despite all the persuasions, all the inducements and all the threats, schools have looked at this initiative and they do not want it? Since the Government are absolutely determined to refuse to recognise that, is it not time that the Government had the courage either to try to make it compulsory by forcing through legislation or—far more preferable—to abandon this scheme altogether?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the grant-maintained school process has considerable support, as the noble Lord well knows, from those in his own party who have made use of the process. If the noble Lord thinks that the process is on the wane, perhaps I may remind him that at present one-in-five children in England in secondary education are at grant-maintained schools. It is very popular indeed with parents. I believe the process will grow as more schools see the advantages of it. In time we shall see all schools pursuing this process.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, while applauding what my noble friend has said about the Government's grant-maintained schools initiative, would he agree with me that there is another less obvious advantage in that some of even the nastier local
666
education authorities may behave better than they would have done were the prospect of grant-maintained status for their schools not available?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I would not want to single out any particular LEA but I can assure my noble friend that the process concentrates minds wonderfully.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Scotland only one school has opted out and that there has been only one other application to consider opting out? Against that background, will the Minister pay tribute to the comprehensive education system and its great success and give an absolute undertaking that nothing the Government do will undermine the comprehensive education system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the great lexicographer Dr. Johnson, I should like to pay tribute to education in Scotland. But I am sure that even that number will expand in due course and that many more schools in Scotland will see the benefits of grant-maintained status. That one will grow to two; in time that will double again, and double again, and double yet further.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, did the noble Lord really mean to say that one in five children were in grant-maintained schools, or did I mishear him? If the number is only 1,100 out of 24,000 schools, the arithmetic seems very peculiar.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that my arithmetic is not very peculiar. If she had listened to my remarks precisely she would realise that I said one in five children at secondary school stage were at grant-maintained schools.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend feel like reminding the Benches opposite when they persistently raise this subject that it took eight years for the first 1,000 schools to go comprehensive whereas, according to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, it has taken four years for 1,000 schools to become grant-maintained? Surely that shows that the initiative is not working all that badly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend's arithmetic is very encouraging indeed. I am sure that in another four years, after the next election, when we have been returned to power for our fifth term, we shall see yet more schools pursuing the benefits of grant-maintained status.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is quite clear from what he told me in answer to my original Question that the Government are not ruling out dispensing with ballots? By the same token may I ask whether the Government intend to do anything about the fact that parent governors who were elected or appointed to governing bodies because they were the parents of children in schools do not now have children in the schools? In those circumstances, does he not agree that it is time that the Government gave further thought to having ballots at appropriate times? He may recall that when the legislation was being debated some of his noble friends suggested that that was essential. However, the original concept and purpose of the scheme has now passed.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I cannot give him the assurance that he would like. We believe that there are considerable benefits in the opt-out process and going grant maintained. In time we would like to see all schools pursue that aim.

Healthcare 2000 Report
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the report by Healthcare 2000 under the chairmanship of Sir Duncan Nichol.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, while not agreeing with all the conclusions, the Government consider the Healthcare 2000 report a useful contribution to the health debate.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and obviously her helpful comment about the future of the health services. Is the Minister aware that some of us feel a little doubtful about the quarter from which the advice has come, bearing in mind Sir Duncan Nichol's record as the chief executive of the National Health Service under which the computer scandals in Wessex took place and those in the West Midlands, which he tried to suppress by refusing to publish the reports of the district auditors in those matters?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, of course another member of this particular organisation responsible for the report is Patricia Hewitt, who is also a member of the Commission on Social Justice.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the lessons that can be learnt from the report to which the Question refers is how dangerous it is for anybody considering this matter to ignore the probability that the rate of growth in the economy is likely to continue for the next few years? Does she further agree that it is also highly possible that governments may be elected that will drastically reduce unemployment and poverty in this country, which are two of the principal causes of many of the claims on the National Health Service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it would be very unwise for anyone reading this report to ignore the growth in the economy, not only that which has taken place, but that which is forecast. It is quite right that the commission which undertook this work should have considered demographic changes. But when we look at the funding of the National Health Service, it has increased by 3 per cent. per year since 1979, unlike during the last Labour administration when there was a cut of 2.7 per cent.

Land-mines: UN Conference
2.53 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What decisions took place at the review conference on the Inhumane Weapons Convention concerning any adverse humanitarian and developmental effects of land-mines; what recommendations they put forward at the conference for future control of land-mines; and whether any changes in the convention are intended as a result.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have, with our western allies and partners, made a series of proposals to the UN Inhumane Weapons Convention, which would significantly strengthen its Protocol II on land-mines. We are very disappointed that consensus on such changes was not achieved at the session of the review conference which has just taken place in Vienna. The main obstacle was the unwillingness of some countries to negotiate effective, tighter restrictions on land-mines.
Lord Judd: My Lords, is the Minister aware that to all who work with the organisations concerned with the grim human consequences of land-mining, as I do, the news of this delay will come as a profound disappointment? Does she accept that it is estimated that during the 11 weeks of the conference alone a further 1,600 victims were killed or maimed, and that land-mining frequently continues to render agricultural development impossible? Has the Minister seen the United Nations Secretary General's calculation that at the present rate of laying and clearing land-mines, two or more decades are added each year to the time required to complete clearance? Will she be assured that she has the full support of this House in everything she can do to keep this issue as a top government priority? Will the Government give a lead by banning the export of all anti-personnel mines?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I do express our profound disappointment at what happened at the 11-week conference. There is no question that we worked extremely hard to get agreement to the proposed stringent technical standards for self-destruction mechanisms and detectability. The failure to reach agreement shows the difficulties or actually achieving effective measures. I have to say that a total ban at this stage is unrealistic. The noble Lord is right in saying that there are more and more victims. It is very sad that developing countries like Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia and Afghanistan, possessing land that could be returned to agricultural use, with the exception of Vietnam, were not represented at the conference. Those countries might have been the ones that could have changed the minds of the countries which resisted our proposals.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that no British companies are at present involved in research or the development of land-mine systems or their remote delivery systems?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot go into the details of what every single company is involved in. It is more than 10 years now since this country exported anti-personnel land-mines. Therefore, I would have thought that it would be rather negative spending to get involved in such research as the noble Lord mentions.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any progress has been made in developing a technology to find the plastic land-mines which up to now have defied conventional detection means?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of some progress that has been made, but I cannot recall the detail. I shall write to my noble friend.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the anti-personnel elements in the runway denial ordnances used by the Royal Air Force are to be stripped out of those weapons in order to prevent the maiming and destruction of human beings some time after the delivery of those weapons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to begin with, a runway is not an ideal place for any person to wander. However, I take the point which the noble Lord is making when he says that, for certain reasons, such weaponry has been used in times of war. They were no doubt used during the Gulf conflict, but I do not have the details to hand. I repeat that we are out to obtain an end to the trade in non-self-destructing and non-detectable anti-personnel mines. We are also out to make sure that there will be a total ban on these munitions, including a ban on the export of all anti-personnel weapons to countries which have not ratified the weaponry convention. That will cover the vast majority of cases. But we need progress from those countries who baulked at making a decision on Protocol II in the past 11 weeks.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while acknowledging the endeavours of the Minister, I ask him whether the term "land-mines" includes not only anti-tank mines but that sometimes more horrible weapon, the anti-personnel mine.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, they are indeed extremely dangerous. It is on the clearance of the anti-personnel mines that the Overseas Development Administration has increased its spending from about £360,000 four years ago to nearly £6 million in the past financial year. We continue to support the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group, as well as many other groups who are doing such important and very brave work overseas.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House which were the countries principally responsible for frustrating the work of the conference?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that it is very productive to start pointing fingers. However, they are both big countries and not exactly our friends in the past.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, did I hear the Minister aright in saying that it was not realistic to ban the export of these devilish devices? Would she expand on why it is unrealistic for this country to give that kind of moral leadership in banning these mines?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that a number of international borders have been policed by having mines. I think particularly of the border between Finland and Russia, but those mines have been fenced and their placement is known. As I said, a total ban is unrealistic at the present time. Of course, the practical approach is to get the broadest possible international agreement, with effective measures that will reduce the dangers to civilians. That includes measures to restrict those long-lived dumb mines which are the most dangerous to civilians and which are still being planted, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said in his supplementary question.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a great deal of what she has said will bring much comfort and will be widely approved by those who take a stand against such awful weapons? However, is she aware that her continued reference to self-destruct mines weakens the case of the Government against achieving an outright ban? Does she not agree that if she says that self-destruct mines are okay and that non-self-destruct mines are not, that opens the door to a continuing trade in such mines throughout the world because non-self-destruct mines are cheaper and there is therefore every encouragement for governments who wish to use such weapons to continue to buy those mines? Will the Minister reconsider the matter and move forward towards achieving a total ban on all anti-personnel land-mines?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know that a total ban is attractive, but if we hold out indefinitely for a total ban on all land-mines we will not be taking the preventive action that we could take in the shorter term. We have reviewed all the difficulties of getting international agreement. I know that it would be marvellous for Britain (or any other country) to take unilateral, virtuous and responsible decisions—it might make Members of the Opposition as well as the Government feel better—but it would have little practical effect. Our fundamental priorities are totally unchanged. We want a much strengthened Protocol II with tight technical and other restrictions which will reduce the dangers to civilians from the indiscriminate use of land-mines while still permitting the legitimate use in defence terms of self-destruct mines under tightly controlled circumstances.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is Britain still exporting such weapons?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord must have been occupied with another subject when I said that we have not exported such weapons for more than 10 years.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been listening with absolute awe and admiration to the way in which she is determined to

671
have land-mines banned in all countries? Is it her intention to bring the same determination to bear on the French Government to stop their nuclear testing?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that has absolutely nothing to do with land-mines. However, I am delighted to say that we were supported by the French in our discussions over an 11-week period.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I think that the Minister said that £6 million is now being spent on research into the control and destruction of such mines which represent a worldwide problem. Does she think that that is enough?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not a question of how much money is spent; it is a question of the application of that money to the continuing worldwide manufacture of such mines although many countries, like us, no longer export them. It is a question of targeting and of making sure that the technology is appropriately addressed.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the Minister know why the countries she mentioned earlier did not attend the review conference? Was it through lack of funds?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that if they had wanted to attend, they would have known my phone number and rung up.
Lord Judd: My Lords, taking into account what the Minister said about the lack of urgency at the conference, does she agree that it might be a good idea to reconvene the conference in Cambodia or a similar country so that the participants are forced to face the reality? In view of the Minister's undoubted commitment to this issue, will she reassure the House about the purpose of the top-level conference which is planned at Shrivenham next month at which delivery systems are to be discussed? Can the Minister assure the House that that will in no way either directly or indirectly accentuate the nightmare with which we are concerned this afternoon?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last question about the Shrivenham conference, I shall make inquiries. I cannot give him any direct answer at the moment. In view of the noble Lord's suggestion that we might ask for such a conference to be hosted by one of the countries still beset by the horrors of mines, it is a thought, but I think that we might see better attendance in a rather more centrally placed country with better airline contacts.

Judicial Standing Orders
3.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
On 12th June the House agreed the third report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices which, among other things, recommended a significant increase in the fees payable by those bringing appeals to your
672
Lordships' House. In addition, the House agreed to the imposition of a fee for bringing a petition for leave to appeal to the House.
In the discussions which took place before the recommendations were made, some concern was expressed lest the new level of fees should deter those who might otherwise wish to bring an appeal or a petition for leave to appeal here. The great majority of cases which reach your Lordships' House are brought by organisations which are unlikely to be affected by the increase. It is also true that in the case of individuals who appeal here, the great majority are legally aided. However, it is possible that an individual who does not qualify for legal aid, but whose financial resources are nevertheless not great, might wish to appeal to or to petition your Lordships' House. It is in order to provide for such an eventuality that I ask your Lordships to agree to an addition to the Standing Order, the terms of which are set out on the Order Paper. I believe that the wording sufficiently expresses its purpose and scope. The amendments to the schedule are consequential upon the decision of the House on 12th June. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That the Standing Orders regulating Judicial Business be amended as follows with effect from 1st November 1995:
Standing Order XIII [Fees]
At end insert,
"If the Clerk of the Parliaments is satisfied that a litigant who has been refused legal aid would suffer financial hardship by the payment of fees to this House, he shall report the circumstances to the Appeal Committee. The Appeal Committee shall have power to waive, modify or suspend such fees, either wholly or in part, and shall report thereon to the House."
In the Schedule, at the beginning insert,
"Petition for leave to appeal"; and delete "Joint Petition (from each party thereto)" and "Final Judgment".—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I very much welcome the amendments and their object which is, as I understand it, to reduce any possibility of unnecessary or unreasonable interference with access to justice in cases litigated in this House. Your Lordships may not be aware of the size of the problem. The increase in fees which your Lordships approved is truly astronomical. Without wearying the House with all the figures, perhaps I may give just three examples. The petition of appeal fee is, as I understand it, to rise from £68 to £500; the notice of appearance fee is to rise from £8 to £100 and the waiver of security for costs fee is to rise from £17 to £100. I hope that my arithmetic is correct because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a very distinguished mathematician as well as jurist.
I give those figures because there has been, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, widespread concern. I should like to clarify whether the language of the discretion which is being conferred on the Appeal Committee is wide enough to cover somebody who does not qualify for legal aid but who has not been refused legal aid. I assume from what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord that although the wording is couched in terms of a refusal, the discretion is wide enough to cover somebody who is ineligible for legal aid but who will suffer real financial hardship because of fees of this level.

673
The other point on which I should be grateful for clarification is as follows. In view of the massive increases in fees and of the very great costs being imposed on litigants by the existing procedural rules which require, for example, 15 copies of the case to be lodged and for them to be paginated in a particularly expensive and, in my respectful submission, unnecessary way, will the noble and learned Lord and his advisers consider, with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other relevant public officers, whether those costs might be looked at to see whether they could be reduced so that our supreme judicial authority, of which we are all very proud, does not inadvertently impose unnecessary barriers on access to the determination of cases?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, so far as concerns the first point, I take it that the wording is broad enough to cover anyone who is not entitled to legal aid and who would be refused it, for example, on financial grounds if they applied for it. I should not have thought that it would be necessary for a formal application to be made in that situation.
On the second point, I am very happy to consider, with my noble and learned friends the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, any procedural simplifications that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has in mind. However, if one looks at the general picture to which he referred, it is important to observe that the costs in legal services associated with appeals to this House are large in comparison with the fees that are here in question. For example, the average taxed costs on bills in party and party taxation in this House in 1993 were of the order of £27,000, and in 1994 they were of the order of £33,000 when the fees charged for the facilities of the House, including of course the services of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (usually five in number), were about £500. What the House has decided to do is to go some distance towards making the fees for those facilities in this House somewhat more realistic.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
3.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMIIIEES in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
INJURY FOR WHICH NO PROVISION IS MADE IN TARIFF
(".—(1) If an application for compensation is made in respect of an injury for which no provision is made in the Tariff, but which appears to the claims officer to be sufficiently serious to qualify
674
for at least the minimum award, the claims officer shall refer that application to the chairman of the body of adjudicators for determination.
(2) The chairman of the body of adjudicators may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the amount of compensation which that injury should attract if subsequently included in the Tariff.").
The noble Lord said: This is a continuing part of the series of amendments which we started last evening and will carry on through the large part of today, which seek to subject to parliamentary scrutiny the draft scheme which was so helpfully provided during the recess. We started with those elements of the scheme such as the definition of "eligibility", which were, in our view, uncontroversial, and we have proceeded through a whole series of elements of the scheme which are in our view mistaken, poorly drafted, or in other ways unsatisfactory.
The treatment of unlisted injuries, which is the subject of Amendment No. 31, is one of those which, in our view, is both poorly drafted and unsatisfactory in total. It is not as if this is a minor problem. The illegal tariff scheme which was brought in in 1994 provided 187 different specified injuries. By the time the present scheme was put forward there were already, after barely a year's experience of the old scheme, 310 specified injuries for which different amounts of compensation are payable.
It is clear that we have not reached the end of that road and that more injuries will be recognised as deserving explicit attention if the scheme is to achieve its objective of being transparent and speedy. The Minister has made that point herself on a number of occasions. The need to deal with unlisted injuries is also recognised in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the scheme; but the arrangements proposed in those paragraphs are extraordinarily complicated and not particularly satisfactory.
The scheme provides that the authority, following consultation with the panel, refers to the Secretary of State any injury for which no provision is made but which appears to be sufficiently serious to qualify for at least the minimum award, and makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State on the amount of compensation, and is involved in consultation with the panel. The paragraph makes it clear that the reference to the Secretary of State is not to refer to the circumstances of any individual application for compensation under the scheme other than the relevant medical reports.
Paragraph 21 of the scheme goes on to say that if an Application is made for an injury for which no provision is made in the tariff and the authority decides to refer the injury to the Secretary of State, an interim award may be made of up to one half of the amount of compensation which is recommended it should attract if subsequently included in the tariff, but is not recoverable if the injury is not subsequently added to the tariff.
That insistence on making additional injuries in the tariff separate from the individual case seems to us a roundabout way of dealing with what should be a simple problem. The new clause which we propose in place of

675
paragraphs 20 and 21 of the scheme is simpler and more just. We are saying that the claims officer who encounters an injury which is not included in the tariff,
"shall refer that application to the chairman of the body of adjudicators for determination."
and that,
"The chairman of the body of adjudicators may make a recommendation to the secretary of state as to the amount of compensation which that injury should attract if subsequently included in the Tariff".
That is a more straightforward procedure. It does not involve any of the roundabout methods which are included in paragraph 20, and the existing flexibility in the scheme would enable an interim payment to be made without the complications which are proposed in paragraph 21.
The amendment is not intended to cause any additional expenditure. It is not intended to breach the principle of an enhanced tariff scheme which the Government are putting forward. It is merely intended to make life easier for the panel and for the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: Medical science continues apace. New discoveries are being made all the time and every new discovery requires new medical terms in which to describe the discovery. No doubt the tariff will be updated gradually to take into account all the relevant new medical terms, but one cannot expect the tariff to respond instantly to new medical terms. There is bound to be an interim before new terms get into the tariff. We do not want a situation to arise where an applicant is told, "The tariff does not so far contain an injury described in the terms in which your particular injury is described by your doctor. Therefore your application fails for this reason". We do not want that situation to arise. We want there to be an interim period, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has described, during which the tariff will no doubt be updated. But in the meantime, we want an amendment of this nature to tide over the interim period and I hope that it will be acceptable.
Baroness Blatch: It appears that there is some misunderstanding about this aspect of the Bill; that is, a person being injured criminally but for whom no category is set out in the scheme.
This amendment clearly draws heavily on paragraph 20 of the draft scheme, which makes provision for the handling of injuries which are not listed in the tariff. Under that paragraph, it would fall to the authority (the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) to consult the appeals panel and then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
This amendment would require the claims officer dealing with an application in respect of an unlisted injury to refer it to the chairman of the appeals panel for a decision. In other words, the chairman of the appeals panel would decide what was an appropriate award for that injury, without necessarily having to refer to the tariff or indeed to anything else. The chairman could then, if he so chose, make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about which tariff band that injury might be placed in. That is rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
676
I am afraid this amendment is unacceptable on two counts. First, there must be, and must clearly be seen to be, complete separation between the initial decision-taking process and the appeals process. The authority, and the authority alone, must be responsible for the initial or first decision. That leaves the appeals panel free to consider appeals against the authority's decision, without having been involved in any way in that initial decision. If the appeals panel were to determine cases of unlisted injuries, it would itself be taking the first decision. To whom, then, could a dissatisfied claimant appeal? To the appeals panel? Hardly, because it would then manifestly be both judge and jury.
Secondly, it is quite wrong that the chairman of the adjudicators should decide in any particular case what an appropriate award should be for an unlisted injury. Certainly he may make a recommendation—and the draft scheme makes provision for this. But the final decision must be one for the Secretary of State and for Parliament which, under the Clause 10 amendments we are proposing later, will have the final say in all such matters. It would be quite inappropriate for anyone else to have that power.
The amendment is, I am afraid, also defective technically in that it does not allow for the possibility of the scheme being contracted out at some future date when it would fall to the staff appointed by the scheme manager and not to a claims officer—as specified in this amendment—to make the necessary referral to the chairman of the appeals panel.
I am afraid that the amendment represents a very good example of the dangers of trying to put too much of the detail of the scheme on to the face of the Bill. If this clause passed into law we should be stuck with a rigid, inflexible process that would not work in the way we would all wish and which could not be corrected other than by further primary legislation whenever a suitable vehicle could be found.
Therefore, the process allowed for under the scheme is that the authority would make a decision. If the injury was unlisted in the tariff it would present that to the appeals panel which would make a recommendation to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Then, if the Home Secretary wished, he would make a proposal to Parliament for Parliament to propose either a new listing or to incorporate it in a band already contained within the tariff. In the meantime, an interim payment can be paid to the applicant. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, if an overpayment were made to the applicant it would not be withdrawn and if any payment were made it would not be withdrawn if the applicant subsequently failed.
We believe that our approach is the right one. It allows for changes to the tariff to take place but it is for Parliament to decide. What I find interesting about the amendment is the fact that almost throughout the debate we have been pressed to make sure that the scheme appears on the face of the Bill or that Parliament should deal with alterations to the Bill or to the scheme. Here is a way of allowing a change to the scheme without the approval of Parliament and we believe that the approval of Parliament is paramount.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I started by thinking that the Minister's response was unsatisfactory because it was formalist—she was taking a view about the formal relationships between the different parts of the criminal injuries compensation process. I am afraid that as I continued to listen I realised that her answer was much worse. First, it is worse because she objects to the use of the phrase "claims officer" in the amendment—and therefore, as we propose, on the face of the Bill—on the grounds, if you please, that it could be the Government's intention to contract out the process of criminal injuries compensation. The Minister is inviting us—and we shall take up her invitation—to put down amendments at a later stage in order to make sure that the criminal injuries procedures are never contracted out. It would clearly be wrong for an integral part of the criminal justice system in this country to be in private rather than public hands. To that extent, I am grateful to her for drawing attention to what lies behind the Government's thinking in the Bill. Therefore, her comment regarding the inclusion in the Bill of a reference to "claims officer" is helpful in that it reveals what the Government are really thinking.
Of course, the scheme, which is subject to parliamentary approval, contains throughout references to claims officers. Therefore, if the scheme were to be contracted out all of those references to claims officers would have to be taken out of the scheme and new wording would have to be put in. The concession, which was made yesterday, of ensuring that there will be an affirmative resolution procedure for the whole scheme and the tariff makes it clear that any proposal for privatisation will have a huge parliamentary effect. To that extent, I suppose that we are grateful.
The second part of the Minister's answer puzzled me because she was saying that our amendment eliminated the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny of additions to the tariff. That simply is not true. The amendment states:
"The chairman of the body of adjudicators may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the amount of compensation which that injury should attract if subsequently included in the Tariff".
If the Secretary of State decides to include the unlisted injury in the tariff and to set a level for that, the amendment to the tariff will come before Parliament, as provided by the amendments to Clause 10 which are to be moved later today. Therefore, it is not true to say that we are proposing that any alteration should be free from the parliamentary scrutiny to which the existing proposals are subject.
The answer was very unsatisfactory and it gives rise to the possibility of a more considered and perhaps far-ranging amendment at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
LOSS OF EARNINGS WHERE MORE THAN ONE INJURY WITHIN 2 YEAR PERIOD
(". Where—

(a) the applicant has made a previous claim or claims under the Scheme in respect of an injury or injuries sustained not more than two years before his present application;

678

(b) the applicant has lost earnings or earning capacity as a consequence of his injury or injuries; and

(c) the cumulative period of lost earnings or earning capacity from that injury or those injuries exceeds any period within the Scheme which disregards lost earnings or earning capacity in calculating additional compensation—

the period within the Scheme shall itself be disregarded to the extent that the cumulative period referred to in subsection (3) above exceeds the Scheme disregard period.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to a type of case which perhaps will not occur often, but I believe that the occurrence may be more frequent than is commonly recognised. It is the case in which more than one injury takes place in a two-year period. It is likely that such a situation will happen when the victim is in a vulnerable occupation. I think in particular of people in the retail trade and of sub-postmasters, who are the classic case. Unfortunately, criminal attacks on shops for the cash takings are all too common and it is all too common to find that those who work in shops or banks—although their security has improved—can consider themselves likely to be attacked more than once in their lifetime and perhaps more than once in a two-year period.
The current scheme provides that the 28-week exclusion period in which no compensation for loss of earnings is paid in effect starts again with the second attack. That really is not fair. It will not be an expensive amendment, but it will provide, as in the terms of the proposed new clause, that if a previous claim has been made not more than two years before the present application, where the applicant has lost earnings, or earning capacity exceeds any period within the scheme which disregards lost earnings or earning capacity in calculating additional compensation, then the period within the scheme shall itself be disregarded to the extent that the cumulative period exceeds the scheme disregard period.
This is not a matter of profound principle but those who are close to people in vulnerable occupations have pointed out to us the anomalies which are to be found in the draft scheme as currently proposed. I suppose that this can be taken as a probing amendment. I do not expect to receive an instant recognition of the justice of the case but merely ask the Minister to undertake to look at it and consider whether, as I believe, there is an unwitting injustice in what is proposed. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is extremely important to bear in mind that each claim should be considered separately and should attract a tariff payment in its own right so that if somebody has been criminally injured twice in the period of two years each claim would be considered separately and a tariff awarded, if appropriate, in each case. But since each tariff payment includes an element for loss of earnings, it would be quite wrong to allow the claimant to accumulate the period of loss.
The purpose of the qualifying period is to distinguish between the more serious cases which merit special consideration and the less serious ones which can reasonably be settled on the basis of a straight tariff payment. We do not consider that two less serious

679
injuries can be regarded as more serious for these purposes, bearing in mind that the victim will receive two separate tariff awards.
There is no case for allowing claimants who receive criminal injuries from separate incidents within a two year period—or any other period come to that—to add together any period for which they may have lost earnings so that if the resulting total exceeds the normal qualifying period for a single injury (that is, 28 weeks) they may be paid loss of earnings for any excess. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I made it clear that I was not intending to press the amendment but I am, of course, disappointed by that reply. We have never claimed that there should be extra tariff payments because somebody is attacked more than once in a two year period. We are saying that those people should not lose out by having the 28 week extension extended further than would otherwise have been the case.
I have listened to the somewhat intransigent response. I shall consider whether there is anything that can be done to persuade the Government more effectively than I have so far succeeded in doing. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
(".—(1) Where the applicant, at the time the claim is assessed, is considered by the claims officer to be likely to suffer continuing loss of earnings or earning capacity, whether or not the applicant was in work at the time of the injury or the application, the applicant shall be entitled to an additional award of compensation which award will comprise the product of a multiplicand (the annual rate of net loss at the date of assessment) and a multiplier (the number of years for which that multiplicand is deemed to be payable) or such other lump sum in respect of loss of earning capacity as the claims officer may determine.
(2) The rate of net loss of earnings or earning capacity (before any deduction in respect of social security benefits) to be taken into account in calculating any compensation payable under subsection (1) shall not exceed one and a half times the gross average industrial earnings at the date of assessment as published by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is much more significant in terms of numbers of cases than the preceding amendment. I recognise from the outset that the proposed tariff is very much better than the 1994 tariff in that it contains provision for compensation for loss of earnings and loss of future earnings which were not included in the crude scheme introduced illegally in 1994.
However, the 28 week rule—in other words, the rule that those who make claims shall not receive any compensation for loss of earnings until after 28 weeks—presents very serious difficulties. I understand perfectly well the thinking behind the rule. It is assumed that for the first 28 weeks, the person concerned will be compensated by means of statutory sick pay. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer, in his speech yesterday on Amendment No. 25, exposed the falsity of that claim. There are many millions of people who are not eligible
680
for statutory sick pay for all sorts of reasons and therefore will receive nothing for the loss of earnings in the first 28 weeks after the date of their injury.
The provision in the scheme for loss of earnings is contained in paragraph 22 of the scheme which, like so many of the paragraphs, is extremely complicated. In essence, the amendment takes the two elements which seem to make sense—that is, paragraphs 22(c) and 22(e)—and propose to put them on the face of the Bill but not to put on the face of the Bill those elements which we think are unfair. Paragraph 22(a) provides that,
"no compensation will be payable in respect of loss of earnings or earning capacity during the first 28 weeks of the applicant's incapacity for work".
In paragraph 22(b) the period is calculated to begin 28 weeks after the date of commencement of the applicant's incapacity for work. Within the same paragraph of the scheme the person is first called a victim and then called an applicant. The draftsmen must get their act together on that.
Paragraph 22(d) refers to the calculation of the multiplicand and the multiplier for the determination of the amount of compensation for loss of earnings. That again refers to Note 7. However, the issue of the calculation is not being dealt with in this amendment. I want to deal with that separately when I move Amendment No. 34, which is next on the Marshalled List.
This amendment provides that it should be established in statutory form that where the applicant is considered to be likely to suffer continuing loss of work, then the applicant is entitled to an additional award of compensation. The rate of net loss of earnings or earning capacity is to be taken into account before any deduction in respect of social security benefits is taken into account in calculating the compensation payable. We agree with the Government that it should not exceed one-and-a-half times the gross average industrial earnings at the date of assessment as published by the Secretary of State.
We have taken out of this complicated paragraph those provisions which we consider to be unfair; that is, the assumption that there is no loss of earnings until after the first 28 weeks. We have put into it those parts without altering the words which we believe to be reasonable. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This is another example of wishing to take one small part of the scheme and put it on the face of the Bill. I have argued long and hard about the principle of that. We believe it is important to keep the details of the scheme, subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses, and thereby allowing a degree of flexibility should there need to be any modification whatever of a minor or major nature in future. We feel that that flexibility is very important. We are not able to accept the notion that just little pieces of the scheme can be translated from the text on to the face of the Bill because we feel that it is much better to allow for such flexibility. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that the Minister is being quite helpful to those who were not present for the previous episodes of this soap opera. We made it clear—we have no shame in that respect at all—that we are indeed seeking to include on the face of the Bill what the Minister would, in this case, call one small part of the scheme. We have gone very carefully through the scheme looking at those elements of it, whether or not we agree with them, which appear to be enduring and unlikely to change. Let us not forget that most of those elements have not actually changed since 1964 when the scheme first came into operation. Therefore, they could be thought of as being as enduring as any element of legislation.
We are suggesting to the Committee and to Parliament that those enduring elements of the scheme should indeed be written on to the face of the Bill because we believe that legislation should be explicit rather than purely enabling. The Bill has been criticised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee for being largely an enabling Bill. Indeed, over and again in Clause 2 the Bill says that there shall be compensation in such a manner as "may be specified".
However, a concession has been made. The principle of the affirmative resolution procedure has been accepted and is to be incorporated in amendments which will be dealt with later today. But that does not absolve us from our responsibility as a serious opposition party of taking the essential elements—that is, the enduring elements—of the scheme, putting them before Parliament, and seeking to have them debated.
I am not surprised that we do not have a large presence in the Chamber for such debates; indeed, I am not surprised that a number of people are deterred from taking part in them because the issues are complex and technical. In many cases, as has become obvious, they are too complex and technical for me. However, I do not in any way apologise for having put forward one small part of the scheme and asking that Parliament should consider and approve it and, if necessary, amend it.
As to the substance of the amendment, the Minister made no specific complaints about it. Indeed, the noble Baroness could hardly do so because the wording comes entirely from paragraph 22 of the draft scheme and we were not responsible for the draftsmanship. It may be one small part of the total Bill; it is nevertheless an extremely important part. Many people coming into contact with the new scheme when it is introduced for the first time will feel it most unjust if the wording has not been amended in the way suggested. They will feel it unjust not to receive compensation for loss of earnings for the first 28 weeks after the injury if they lack any other source of income in the form of statutory sick pay or the indulgence of their employer, or, indeed, if they have no employer at all, as would be the case, for example, with the self-employed.
When the scheme comes to be promulgated and put into force on 1st April 1996, which I believe to be the intended date, I do not believe that the public at large will understand why such a severe restriction has been made in the loss of earnings provisions in the scheme
682
and in the tariff. I was going to move to press my amendment, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, wishes to intervene.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am much obliged. Is the noble Lord now saying that the purpose of the amendment is really the same as was intended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, yesterday, as regards doing away entirely with the restriction on payment for loss of earnings for the first 28 weeks? If that is the case, I should like to repeat to my noble friend the Minister what I said yesterday; namely, that I believe it is reasonable, purely from the point of view of practicality, to have some cut-off point. Whether or not 28 weeks is the right one is, of course, a matter for debate. However, with the volume of applications now being received, I do not believe that one can really carry on deciding whether someone has lost earnings over two weeks and then decide whether or not as a result of that there has or has not been a benefit to him because his benefits are greater than his loss of earnings. It is that sort of attempt to fine tune which has caused many of the problems taking up the time of the authority.
If that is the noble Lord's intention, I hope that one's silence will not be taken as meaning that one agrees with what is behind the suggestion. I believe that the Government are right to accept on purely pragmatic and practical grounds that people who are only out of work for a very short period should be covered by the tariff figure—if that is what we are to have—rather than go through the rather complicated process of trying to find out the individual loss of earnings in any particular case.
Further, if that is the noble Lord's intention, is he really satisfied that his own drafting achieves that aim? As I understand it, his drafting says:
"Where the applicant, at the time the claim is assessed, is considered … to be likely to suffer continuing loss".
When a claim falls to be assessed, it means not only that such a claim has to be made but also that it must go through the various processes of having inquiries made of the police and medical reports prepared. Indeed, the claim would probably come to be assessed for considerably longer than 28 weeks after the date on which the injury occurred. In fact, according to a later amendment of the noble Lord, as the person need not put in a claim until three years afterwards, the date of assessment may well be some three-and-a-half years after the injury.
However, as I understand it, if the amendment is accepted in its present form, the claims officer would have to be satisfied at that time that there was a continuing loss of earnings or of earning capacity. Therefore, the noble Lord may find that his amendment would unintentionally extend the 28-week period rather than reduce it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord made two points; indeed, his second point answered the first. It is not, and never was, our intention that there should be loss of earnings payment for someone who loses earnings for only a couple of weeks. Of course, we recognise—the wording is explicit because, after all, it is the

683
Government's wording—that we are referring to the time when the claim is assessed and to a continuing loss of earnings or of earnings capacity. We are not saying that short-term loss of earnings should be covered by the scheme. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that that would be a huge burden on the scheme.
Amendment No. 25, moved yesterday by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, dealt with a slightly different point—namely, that statutory sick pay does not in fact cover loss of earnings—and suggested that there should be provision for the difference between actual income and a loss of earnings. The point that I am now making is a different one. For the continuing loss of earnings or earning capacity, whether or not the applicant was in work—again, those are the Government's words from the scheme—compensation should not count only from after the first 28 weeks. Therefore, it is not the huge extension in the scope of the loss of earnings scheme that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, rightly fears. It is justice for those who, after 28 weeks, at whatever time the claim is assessed, are assessed to have a continuing loss of earnings or earning capacity. This is such an important issue that I think it is necessary to take the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Windlesham: Before the noble Lord concludes his remarks and the debate comes to an end I would like to raise some related matters which arise from this amendment, but from a different angle. Paragraph 22 of the criminal injuries (tariff-based) compensation scheme deals with the crucial matter of loss of earnings. Those Members of the Committee who have taken part in the earlier stages of the debate both on this Bill and on the proceedings initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, earlier will know that this has been one of the most contested matters; that is, whether or not the scheme should provide payment for future loss of earnings.
The Government—this was welcomed by the organisations in the field—had a change of heart. Initially there was to be no provision in the tariff scheme for loss of earnings, but in the enhanced scheme now before the Committee, which will be enacted as delegated legislation under the authority of this Bill, there is some provision. I think we can all agree that it is of great importance that this paragraph should be comprehensible. Yesterday I declared my interest as president of Victim Support and I repeat it now. Victim Support assisted over 11,000 single claims in the past 12 months. There are large numbers of people both giving advice and in need of advice as regards what their entitlement will be under paragraph 22 of the scheme. The paragraph states:
"where the applicant, at the time the claim is assessed, is considered by the claims officer to be likely to suffer continuing loss of earnings or earning capacity, such loss will comprise the product of a multiplicand (the annual rate of loss at the date of assessment) and a multiplier (the number of years for which that multiplicand is deemed to be payable) or, when the claims officer considers this approach is impracticable, such other lump sum in respect of loss of earning capacity as the claims officer may determine".
That is an extraordinarily complicated formulation. I have read it several times and I am not sure what it means. Victim Support has asked me to raise two questions which I shall leave with the noble Baroness because they are technical. I am sure she can ensure that
684
a reply will be sent to the right quarter. The first question relates to the claims officer's responsibility for determining how long loss of earnings may be claimed for and to ask what experience claims officers will have to enable them to make such decisions correctly. It seems to me that is a fair point on which some information should be forthcoming although I do not press the noble Baroness to produce it now without notice. The second question is to ask for clarification on the type of contingencies which it is envisaged may appear relevant to the claims officers. What will constitute a contingency? Perhaps the noble Baroness will take note of those points and arrange for a reply to be sent in due course.
Baroness Blatch: I am happy to give my noble friend that assurance not only as regards the two specific questions he asked but also as regards the readability and the understandability of the scheme itself. Perhaps my noble friend remembers that yesterday one of the arguments for supporting the scheme standing outside the Bill was not only that that increased the flexibility for modification but also that we could resort to less legalistic language so that it was readily understood and we could dispense with the raft of people who are required to interpret it. I, too, take that point seriously.
Lord Windlesham: While I appreciate that reply, I think that the description that the noble Baroness has just used of legalistic language is well justified. If she can persuade her officials to look again at this provision which will be referred to over and over again in applications she will be doing a service to the Chamber and to future claimants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has raised important points, not least the point of the comprehensibility of paragraph 22 of the draft scheme. For the sake of clarity of debate I want to cover that point in Amendment No. 34, which follows the amendment that we are discussing.
The part of the scheme to which the noble Lord is referring is not just complicated as regards the text that he read, but also refers to note 7 to the scheme which is even more complicated and, as we shall see, is crude and inefficient. If the complaint about legalistic language applies also to subparagraphs (c) and (e) of paragraph 22 of the scheme, which are the subparagraphs that we included in this amendment to be part of the Bill, I plead guilty of proposing to repeat legalistic language on the face of the Bill. However, we have to do the best we can. We have to deal with the work that has been done—which is often conscientious and well meaning work—which seeks to tackle the complexities of the scheme in a document which is comprehensible, and we have to try to look for those elements which are not going to change.
I believe that these elements will not change and I believe that a scheme which achieves adequate compensation with respect to loss of earnings capacity and indeed pension rights needs to be on the face of the Bill because that is one of the primary justifications which the Government have adduced for bringing

685
forward this enhanced tariff scheme. It is because I think it is so important that loss of earnings payments should be spelt out and not simply be referred to as,
"in such cases as may be specified",
as Clause 2 of the Bill now states, that I believe the Committee ought to take a view on Amendment No. 33.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Airedale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Longford, E.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mackie of Bensrie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Chorley, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Nelson, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Sandwich, E.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shannon. E.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Grey, E.

Simon, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Straffond, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hylton, L.

Tope, L.

Jay, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Varley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

Judd, L.

White, B.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ampthill, L.

Abinger, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Addison, V.

Balfour, E.

Ailsa, M.

Barber, L.

Aldington, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belhaven and Slenton, L.

686

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Blyth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McConnell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brain, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Burnham, L.

Marsh, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mottistone, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Newall, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Conslantine of Stanmore, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Courtown, E.

Orkney, E.

Cox, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Palmer, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Peel, E.

Davidson, V.

Pender, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Derwent, L.

Prentice, L.

Digby, L.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Radnor, E.

Dormer, L.

Rawlings, B.

Downshire, M.

Rennell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Ridley, V.

Elles, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elliott of Marpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L

Sandford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Finsberg, L.

Selborne, E.

Flather, B.

Sharples, B.

Gainford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gray, L.

Stokes, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swansea, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Harrowby, E.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Inchyra, L.

Ullswater, V.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Kimball, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Kintore, E.

Waterford, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Westbury, L.

Leigh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Lindsay, E.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 34:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
CALCULATION OF FUTURE FINANCIAL LOSS
(". Where the calculation of an additional amount of compensation requires a calculation of future financial loss, that calculation shall be made by reference to such tables as are published from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 is the amendment that I trailed in my previous speech. However, I trailed it incorrectly. I did not read paragraph 22 of the draft scheme closely enough, and therefore I did not realise that what I was talking about was not Note 7 to the scheme but Note 5. Both are referred to in paragraph 22, but it is Note 5 that I particularly want to criticise. Although the drafters of the scheme cannot get their own names right, perhaps they are better at getting their numbers right.
Note 5, which also applies to a number of other paragraphs in the scheme, provides for the way in which a multiplier shall be calculated for the accelerated receipt of a lump sum under the provisions of the scheme.
Perhaps I may again begin in my usual conciliatory way by saying that the provisions in the scheme for accelerated receipt of a lump sum are wholly to be welcomed. In that respect, as in 'many others, the scheme which is put forward in the draft and outlined in the Bill is an enormous improvement on the previous tariff scheme. We would not find ourselves in agreement with the general principle of the scheme if that were not the case. Therefore, we start from a position of agreement with a good deal of the scheme which is now proposed.
However, the proposals in Note 5 to paragraph 22—and to other paragraphs—appear to us to be seriously defective. The proposals include two columns of figures. One relates to periods of time in five-year bands and the other is a multiplier which is sometimes in bands of three, sometimes in bands of two and eventually progresses to bands of one. That means that the multiplier which is provided for the accelerated receipt of a lump sum is hugely different according to whether one is just above or just below the 10 or 15 year band. It becomes less serious as the period continues. However, it is not a continuous process. It is not a mathematical formula which will apply to all possible circumstances. It is a quite unnecessarily crude oversimplification which will lead to considerable injustices at the margin.
Perhaps I may draw an analogy which will not endear me to those on the opposite Benches. It is rather like the council tax as opposed to the rates. A few years ago when we considered the council tax in place of the infamous poll tax we on these Benches warned the Government that there would be serious problems because the proposed bands were too wide and too crude. The Government paid attention to some extent because they added bands at both ends of the scale and made it a less wide and less crude scheme. However, we warned that there would be a huge number of appeals against the council tax because the differences were so great; and we were right. The number of appeals
688
was far greater than the Government anticipated. I am not even sure that the backlog of those appeals which were initiated years ago when the council tax was first introduced has yet been cleared. I may be wrong about that; they had not been cleared six months ago.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Would it help the noble Lord if I pointed out that two years ago I appealed against the assessment of my house? It has not yet been taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful for confirmation from the noble Lord. He has reinforced my point that a crude number of steps is worse than a formula which does not provide for those differences at the margin.
There is no need for that, because a perfectly good method of calculation is available. The tables are published from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department. They refer to use in personal injury and fatal accident cases. There is no reason on earth that an additional amount of compensation which requires a calculation of future financial loss should not he made by reference to the official Government Actuary's table rather than in terms of Note 5 of the draft scheme.
This issue is not of profound importance to the scheme. It is not an issue on which I propose to divide the Committee. I shall not take kindly to the Minister telling me that it is another small change. We seek to be helpful and I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should not take the opportunity just for once to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the Minister replies, will she explain exactly what is intended? It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has a point. Paragraph 22 states:
"The multiplier will be selected by the claims officer by reference to the table at Note 5".
Does that mean that he has to take one of the five year periods as the multiplier? In other words, if someone has a future loss, and the period to the date of retirement is 13 years, is it intended that he must take the multiplier of 10, being the one below 13, or will he have the discretion to say that the period of loss is 13 years, therefore the multiplier falls between eight and 11 and is probably 10 or 9½? It is important to know what is meant by the reference that the claims officer shall select the multiplier by reference to the table. Does he have discretion to take figures within the table; or is he limited merely to the figures shown?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Perhaps I may take this opportunity to raise a point which may appear to be oblique but could be referred to by the Minister on this amendment.
In our debate yesterday in Committee, at col. 589 of the Official Report, she stated:
"We want the scheme to be easy for victims to understand, without recourse to legal advice which could be expensive and slow down the process. As far as possible, therefore, we want to use every-day terms that are readily understood".
In saying that, the Minister had in mind the advantages of the scheme not including everything on the face of the Bill or within a statutory instrument. The noble

689
Lord, Lord Carlisle, made it clear in respect of his own understanding, and it is clearly the case from what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on this and the last amendment, that a good deal of the scheme is incomprehensible even to Members of the Committee. It remains to be seen whether the language in the scheme could be rendered in some other way. That clearly would be the wish of the Committee. However, if the scheme is to be in this form, perhaps the Minister will indicate what further explanatory information would be available to the public for them to be able to understand what Members of the Committee do not now understand.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may attempt to answer my noble friend's question. It was incredibly technical. There is flexibility. These tables are used in common law damages, as I believe my noble friend knows. There is a degree of flexibility in taking any one of those fixed points. For example, if the figure falls somewhere between five and 10, or 10 and 15, these reference points are used as fixed points about which a calculation will be arrived at.
I am advised that in calculating a lump sum which fairly represents the present value of the stream of an applicant's future net loss of earnings, or the present cost of a stream of future expenses, the courts, and hence the board, have traditionally relied on multipliers which assume a net rate of return on investment of about 4.5 per cent. after the effects of tax and inflation have been taken into account.
These multipliers were developed over many years in the context of uncertainty about the economy and about the real rate of return on a basket of equities and gilts. It was assumed that this approach would deliver an income derived from dividends and sales of shares which would broadly match the lost income. Inflation would increase dividends and share prices enabling the holdings gradually to be realised over the years to which the loss related. At the end of that time the fund would be extinguished. This has resulted in the following conventional multipliers which are set out in the paragraph referred to by the noble Lord which have been incorporated into the enhanced tariff scheme. The flexibility that my noble friend seeks is indeed there.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We are conscious of the deficiencies in Note 5. We shall address that issue when we make the necessary changes and clarification when we offer the scheme to Parliament for approval. There will be a comprehensive guide in everyday language. I know that that was a point of concern to many Members of the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a more helpful reply than we have had for a long time. I am grateful to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is entirely
690
right. We have a table in Note 5 which appears to be completely rigid. We then have the provision in paragraph 22(d) which states:
"The multiplier will be selected by the claims officer by reference to the table at Note 5"—
—that is, not in accordance with the table at Note 5—
"taking account of any contingencies which appear relevant to the claims officer".
In other words, we are rigid. However, we do not mean to be rigid, and we shall not be rigid, but we are putting forward what appears to be rigid rules. I am satisfied for the moment with the indication from the Minister that there will be changes to this part of the scheme when the matter comes before Parliament. I hope that the clash between a rigid table and a flexible interpretation will be addressed and that there will be an attempt to express the legislation in more comprehensible language.
I still urge the Minister to consider the value of moving from such a table to actuarial evidence. I understand that the Law Commission has recommended that actuarial evidence should be admissible in courts and in particular, the Ogden tables which are the tables of the Government actuary. I commend a solution which avoids the necessity of appearing to be rigid and then tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. I propose something which is more comprehensible which can easily be referred to and which does not involve the kind of double talk which exists in the scheme at present. However, on the basis of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 34.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Claims and awards]:
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 2, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert ("in specified circumstances").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 3(1)(c) enables provision to be included in the scheme about repayment of compensation for breach of conditions subject to which an award was made. However, the scheme also needs to include provision for repayment in other circumstances, such as where the applicant receives compensation from other sources in respect of the same criminal injury and where that other compensation was not taken into account when the award was made under the scheme. That would simply replicate the position under the present scheme. The amendment is intended to allow that to take place and so to prevent the applicant obtaining compensation twice over for the same injury.
As presently drafted, the provision in the Bill would not allow such recovery under the scheme and the provision accordingly needs to be amended to permit recovery in those wider circumstances. With that explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 3, leave out from ("made") to end of line 4 and insert ("either—

(i) three years of the date of the incident, or

(ii) three years of the eighteenth birthday of the applicant,

whichever is the later, save that the person determining the application may waive this requirement in exceptional cases.").
The noble Lord said: Again, the amendment seeks to put on the face of the Bill provisions in the scheme which at the moment are non-statutory or, as proposed, subject to subordinate legislation. There is a particularly strong reason why the time limits for applications after the date of injury should be on the face of the Bill rather than capable of alteration at relatively short notice.
The common law scheme which had existed since 1964 had a time limit of three years. In other words, a claim could be made at any time up to three years after the date of the injury. For a number of kinds of injury there was the possibility of late applications being considered and approved. The three-year time limit had survived for 30 years without alteration and without any noticeable difficulty, unless one could argue that the three-year time period was too short because a considerable number of late applications were received and authorised.
Then the 1994 illegal tariff was introduced which arbitrarily brought down the period to one year. What is now proposed is between the two: a two-year limitation period. The Government have resisted amendments to reinstate the three-year period on the grounds that some police forces destroy their records earlier than others. The fact is that over a period of 30 years, the three-year time limit has not caused any difficulties. So far as we know, it is extremely unusual for records to be destroyed within three years and it would not be a terrible hardship if the order went out to police forces that they should not destroy their records for three years, particularly for that purpose.
In the Criminal Injury Compensation Board report for 1993–94—the last year of the common law scheme—we find that there were 3,704 out-of-time applications and that 2,715 of them were allowed. In other words, even with a three-year time period, a considerable number of applications had to be considered after that period and had to be allowed. A relatively small proportion were found to be unreasonable.
One can imagine all kinds of cases in which three years is too short a time period. There is the example of a girl who was repeatedly sexually abused by her mother's boyfriend between 1976 and 1986. As a result, she gave birth. The offender was not jailed until 1993 and the victim's appeal against the time limit was, in my view, entirely properly allowed because it was only possible to establish that there had been a criminal offence at that time. In other words, that is seven years after the incident took place.
There is another example of an applicant now aged 22 who was sexually abused by his uncle between the ages of six and seven. The incidents were not reported to the police until three years ago; the director agreed to waive the time limit and an award was made.
It is not just for sexual abuse and psychological injury, although those are the cases which usually take a long time to come out. Many physical injuries do not resolve themselves until after a three-year period and no one knows whether someone will end up paraplegic, blind or permanently incapacitated in a certain way. After all, three years is still the norm for other personal injury claims, it is the normal time limit for claims as a result of road accidents, medical negligence or workplace injury. It does not seem at all unreasonable that we should go back to the time limit which applied for 30 years without real difficulty, except for appeals against three years being too short. There seems no good reason why the Government should arbitrarily impose a shorter time limit of two years. That will clearly cause more appeals and a higher proportion of appeals succeeding. It would not cause more claims or more expense, but it would cause more people to put their appeals in at a time when it is possible to foresee more clearly what the permanent results of the injury are likely to be. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support the contention that a three-year period from the 18th birthday may be too short. At the moment, I am in correspondence with Ministers in Northern Ireland concerning the case of a young woman. When she was 15 or 16 she was raped by, of all people, a policeman. She suffered consequent trauma and much mental suffering which was aggravated when she had to give evidence in court in a criminal prosecution which led to the conviction and sentencing of a policeman. By some oversight, no claim for compensation for injury was made until after her 21st birthday. She was therefore out of time. In that case, I am asking for an ex gratia payment.
I suggest to the Committee that there needs to be some mechanism for allowing such cases which, for some reason, fall to be out of time but which should be allowed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps, before the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, speaks, he will allow me to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for referring to an element of my amendment which I failed to mention. We propose that it should be three years from the date of the incident or three years from the 18th birthday, whichever is the later. That covers both the examples that I gave and the one which the noble Lord gave. It is clear that very many injuries or cases of child abuse will not become apparent until after the 18th birthday. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing that to the attention of the Committee.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. However, the particular case that I mentioned did not cover the fact that the woman was out of time.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the past year saw the greatest number of out of time applications (3,704), he will be slightly surprised to hear that this is one aspect of the Bill which I believe is an improvement on the present scheme. I agree with the proposal to reduce the time in which to make application. I believe that in

693
practice it will not make all that much difference, because the vast majority of claims are made very shortly after the injury. I believe that in the normal run of cases a time limit of two years is an adequate maximum. The problem is that in making an application the further away one gets from the date of the injury the more difficult it is to investigate fairly the original incident.
It is true that most police forces retain records for three years before they are destroyed. One is not talking solely of the destruction of police records but also of the tracing of hospital records. A person who puts in a claim two years nine months after the event may not remember the exact date when the assault occurred. He may not even remember the month in which it occurred. One then starts numerous cross-correspondence with the police force—the applicant having claimed that he reported the incident at the time—to try to chase down a criminal offence about which the applicant has no clear recollection of the date of its occurrence. I believe that a great deal of time is taken up in pursuing claims that are put in shortly before the end of the three-year time limit. I believe that anything that is done to encourage people to make claims earlier is to be supported. These days there is a great deal more awareness of criminal injury compensation claims than in the past, partly because the police are encouraged to advise victims of crime of their rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, Victim Support also advises and encourages many people. I believe that a time limit of two rather than three years is perfectly defensible.
I should like to stress what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said and the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It is essential that whatever time limit is set the scheme should have discretion to allow cases to be considered outside it. I refer to cases of sexual abuse, in particular child sex abuse.
All experience shows that in the case of children who are abused in their youth and teenage years, particularly if the abuse is committed by a member of the family, a relation or even a close family friend, there are tremendous pressures on the victims not to make it known. They do not have the courage to report what has happened to them until they are in their twenties. Often, they do not go to the police until they are married and have children of an age when they were themselves abused. They suddenly become worried whether the same member of the family, who is probably still around one generation on, will begin to abuse their own children. It is essential that there should be discretion to allow the authority to waive the time limit in cases of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that in the past year of the 3,704 out of time applications received by the board 2,715 were allowed. Almost all of them probably related to cases of child sexual abuse or sexual offences against young adult women.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, one would hope that had such an application fallen under the English scheme the time limit would immediately have been waived. I do not know the whole of the facts. However, the policy that I have pursued since I have been chairman is that if there is still sufficient evidence
694
readily available to allow the board to make a fair decision I will allow the application, even if it is several years out of date. I recognise that a person who has been abused in his or her teens, or at a younger age, often does not have the opportunity or determination to bring it to the notice of the authorities until his or her mid-twenties. I believe that those cases are covered. I also believe that the cases relating to those under 18 are covered.
While we are not directly affected by the same rules as the courts and look at three years from the date of the incident rather than three years from the date of majority, if the applicant is a minor, invariably in practice if an application is made by a minor within three years of reaching his or her majority, and the incident occurred before the age of 18, that application is allowed in under the scheme.
I believe that the Government are improving the scheme by reducing the general time limit from three to two years. It will encourage people to make application at a time when incidents can be more easily investigated. I support it, provided it is made clear that there is a wide discretion within that authority to deal with the cases that I have mentioned, although they may fall outside the time limit.
Lord Ackner: I refer to a point which arises from the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Wide discretion is not provided in the scheme as it stands. Under paragraph 11 it is provided that a claims officer may waive this requirement in exceptional circumstances. That gives a very narrow discretion. One only has to look at the phrase "exceptional circumstances" in other legislation, for instance that dealing with suspended sentences. A suspended sentence can be given only in exceptional circumstances. One has only to look at the decided cases to see how narrow that provision is. If the claims officer considered that in all the circumstances it was just and reasonable, there would be a discretion which would cover particularly the unexceptional case of child abuse. That is a category on its own, and it is unexceptional on the basis of what the noble Lord has said. Clearly, if there is to be a discretion it must be in much wider terms than these.
With regard to reducing the period from three to two years, it is desirable to try to get any litigation on as near as possible to the event. That is generally accepted to be the position. For years and years a three-year period with a wide discretion has applied to all personal injury cases, such as road accidents, where shortness of memory is of particular importance and police records are clearly relevant. It also applies to medical negligence, which is another wide field in relation to this type of litigation, and, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it also applies to all personal injury cases that arise out of accidents at work.
There is no move that I know of generally to reduce the period from three to two years. That being so, it is difficult to see why this field should be singled out. It has nothing to do with the question of preserving the tariff system with the advantages which have been so clearly emphasised; it is purely an administrative revision. The fact that the so-called "illegal" tariff

695
provided one year, shows how arbitrary one can be in relation to tinkering with the present situation. Why one year? Why double it now? Finally, why not stay with the system which has been working satisfactorily and leave alone this particular aspect, which has a certain aura of meanness about it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I can make a practical observation to the Committee—that is, that time and again those of us who sit throughout the country on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, find that different police forces have different rules in regard to destroying records.
I do not wish to enter the debate as to whether the period concerned should be one, two or three years; that was dealt with by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. But police officers come to hearings with no records and the board is asked to decide on the balance of probabilities whether an offence occurred. When we ask why no records are available, we are told that the police force has a rule to destroy them after two years and in some places after three years.
Perhaps the Government will take the opportunity in the context of the Bill to consult on this matter with the police forces throughout the United Kingdom and not just in England and Wales—the Bill tends to have an English and Welsh emphasis. It would be helpful if the Government laid down some rules as to how long records should be kept. I suspect—I use that word advisedly—that cost is behind the reasoning. If records have to be stored, that storage must be paid for. Records are being destroyed and victims may be being denied justice by the absence of those records. The board can be faced with a police officer who may not even be the officer involved in the investigation. He comes along and says, "I spoke to PC Smith about this, and he said this or that". When we ask if he has any records, he says that they were destroyed and that it is the force's policy to destroy them within a two or three-year period.
This is a real practical problem with which the board is faced, whichever authority is involved and whether a tariff scheme exists. When we look at the question of eligibility, we must look to the background of the case. When records are destroyed in the way that they are at the moment, injustice may result, not only to the individual, but also to the public purse. The board may take a decision in the wrong direction and give the applicant the benefit of doubt in the absence of records. Perhaps the Minister will take away that thought, which occurred to me as the debate was progressing this afternoon, and consult with police authorities to try to obtain uniformity throughout the United Kingdom as to when police records should be destroyed.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sure that everyone will have found this debate useful. I stress that there is no spirit of meanness in the selection in the scheme of the period of two rather than three years. As the debate indicated, this is a practical matter.
The Committee will have benefited greatly from hearing my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, with their experience of how the scheme works in practice and how the delay in bringing claims affects the ability of the board to
696
determine them. When a change was made from three years to one year in the scheme which was found to be unlawful, that change was not made in a spirit of meanness on the part of the Government; it was made at the request of the board. The board had found that the practical difficulties of the kind ventilated in Committee today, made a shorter period of one year preferable. There are other points of view, and other factors point in other directions, as other Members of the Committee pointed out. For that reason, in bringing forward the draft scheme for the consideration of the Committee, the Government put in two years. That seemed to act as a compromise between the two views.
This is not something that should be set in stone and we do not feel that it is right to put the matter on the face of the Bill. If a change were to occur in the practice of keeping police records, it may be that a change in the period would be appropriate. In other words, it is a practical matter. However, for the reasons indicated, we believe that it is a good idea for people to put in their claims as early as possible. In that way they are more likely to be satisfactorily investigated and to be determined quickly; and people will receive the compensation to which they are due more quickly.
For those reasons it is a good idea to have a time limit of two years, always subject to the provision for discretion. In that regard my understanding is that the words, "in exceptional cases", to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, are in the current 1990 scheme and are therefore the words exercised by my noble friend.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Does my noble and learned friend agree that while it is true that they are the words that are in the existing scheme, one always feels that one is stretching them far beyond their exact meaning? I am bound to say that the words suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would fit more easily into the way in which the scheme is run in practice.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I was simply about to observe that, nonetheless, I note what is said and understand the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We will be happy to look at the words and see whether they are the words which would be most apt to provide the kind of discretion which in practice is exercised by the board. We all agree that the board should exercise its discretion to deal with the circumstances indicated to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Carlisle. For those reasons, we believe that the matter is best dealt with in the manner indicated in the scheme, with perhaps some adjustment to the precise wording.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that this is another example of the Government saying, "The scheme must be rigid, but we do not really mean it". That is what is implied by the discussion in relation to the phrase, "in exceptional cases".
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, whose experience and judgment we take extremely seriously, admitted almost in so many words that he did not care for the words, "in exceptional cases", which occur in the existing scheme,

697
and that the board "stretch" them. I do not know whether he used that actual word, but that is what he meant.
I do not like starting a new scheme with what appears to be a rigid system—a two-year time limit—and then saying, "We do not mean it because, though the scheme says that late applications will be received in exceptional circumstances, we all know that they will be dealt with compassionately and leniently". That is not a very good way to start a scheme, whether or not it is a good way to write legislation, and this will be subordinate legislation.
I am almost persuaded—but not quite—that this is largely a practical issue. Of course it is a practical issue to the extent that there are always people who will butt up against the time limit. But they have no specified incentive to do that. If an injury has been sustained, the incentive will be for the claim to be put in as early as possible so that the money can be obtained as early as possible. It will only be in exceptional circumstances anyway that, knowing that there is a two or three-year limit, people will put in their claims at the end of one year and 11 months or two years and 11 months respectively.
The fact that even with a three-year limit a very large number of claims were made and nearly as large a number of claims were allowed would tend to indicate that the time limit itself is not a desirable thing. If there is to be a time limit, surely the argument must be in favour of it, where one is dealing with a subset of personal injury, being the same as for other personal injury claims. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, confirmed, and as I said originally, claims for compensation for road accidents, for medical negligence and for injuries at work are all still on the basis of a three-year time limit. No one has suggested either that they should be changed or that there is any particular difficulty—for example, in terms of police records—in sticking to the existing rule. My noble friend Lord Macaulay had a valid point when he said that it would be worth suggesting to police forces that they should keep records for three years. I was disappointed that the noble and learned Lord did not take up that point in his reply. I gladly give way to him.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sorry. I forgot to say that I shall of course draw the attention of the departments concerned to that matter. The point is well taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. Of course it is to some extent an administrative matter. But anyone who has been concerned with claims of this kind and with Victim Support will agree that a substantial number of people take the rules literally as laid down and think that if they have missed the time limit there is no possibility of making a claim. If three years has worked successfully for a period of 30 years, if three years as a time limit is still applicable for the very much larger number of personal injury claims which are not criminal injury compensation claims, surely the balance of the argument must be in favour of there being a three-year period.
698
With deep respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, what I think he is making is administrative judgments rather than seeking to have a scheme which is as transparent and as apparently fair to as wide a number of people as possible. I am not convinced either by his arguments or by those of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 37.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 143.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kintore, E.

Addington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Marsh, L.

Carter, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hertford, M.

Strafford, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Tope, L.

Hylton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Inchyra, L.

Varley, L.

Jay, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Judd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

On Question, amendments agreed to.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Abinger, L.

Alport, L.

Addison, V.

Ampthill, L.

Aldington, L.

Arran, E

Astor of Hever, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Layton, L.

Barber, L.

Lindsay, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McConnell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Burnham, L.

Cadman, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Caithness, E.

Malmesbury, E

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Canington, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northesk, E.

Colnbrook, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Onslow, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dormer, L.

Pender, L.

Downshire, M.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Dundonald, E.

Prentice, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Prior, L.

Elles, B.

Radnor, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Finsberg, L.

Seccombe, B.

Flather, B.

Selborne, E

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gainsborough, E

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gray, L.

Strathcarron, L

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Swansea, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tebbit, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harvington, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

5.2 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
("(1A) Where injury is sustained accidentally by a person who is engaged in any of the activities set out in subsection (1B), compensation will not be payable unless the person injured was, at the time he sustained injury, taking an exceptional risk which was justified in all the circumstances.
(1B) The activities are—

(a) the apprehension or attempted apprehension of an offender or suspected offender, the prevention or attempted prevention of an offence, or the giving of help to any constable who is engaged in any such activity; or

(b) any activity other than firefighting directed to containing, limiting or remedying the consequence of a crime.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is another example of what is in form another amendment to the Bill and we would like to see it included in the Bill. But, realistically, we are seeking an amendment to the scheme. Perhaps I may make a suggestion to the noble and learned Lord when he replies. Both of us have been over the arguments many times and perhaps we can confine ourselves to the merits of what is being proposed.
Paragraph 10 of the scheme excludes from compensation people engaged in certain kinds of law enforcement or engaging in,
"any other activity directed to containing, limiting or remedying the consequences of a crime"
unless they are taking an exceptional risk. The word "exceptional" rears its head again. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out in the last debate, the courts and the tribunals will feel that they have to give some effect to a word which Parliament has seen fit to include in the Bill. So this provision is going to be a very real limit on the number of people who will be able to claim under the Bill.
Pausing there for a moment, those exceptions are surprising. First, there is no obvious reason why a person who is present at the scene of a fight, simply from idle curiosity, and who is injured, should be compensated while someone who is public spiritedly trying to restore order or protect someone should be denied compensation. The reasons for that distinction are not self-evident. If there is reasoning behind it, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will tell us.
Secondly, it seems a curious way of encouraging people to co-operate in law enforcement and rescue activities. In this world virtue is not always rewarded, but it is rather strange to turn that unhappy circumstance into a policy. We are puzzled at the whole purpose of this group of exclusions. It may then be asked why in this amendment we are seeking to write that principle into the Bill. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord has divined, for this purpose we are concerned with remedying a much more limited but perhaps more glaring area of injustice. It is found in the words of our amendment, "other than firefighting".
As at present drafted, the scheme excludes any firefighter injured while seeking to limit or remedy the consequences of arson unless what he was doing was taking an exceptional risk. I shall come to that in a moment. It seems a very mean way to reward firefighters for the risks we require them to take. As I said, they are covered if they are injured while taking an exceptional risk, which is held ex post facto to have been justified. We know that it is easy, with the benefit of quiet contemplation, to pass judgment on an action which was taken in the heat of the moment, and perhaps quite literally so.
For a firefighter, what is an exceptional risk? They are taking grave risks all the time; that is what we ask them to do. I hope that when the noble and learned Lord replies he will tell us, first, the reason for the exclusions in general and, secondly, tell us whether in any event the Government will deem it possible to show an element of generosity to those whose work every day includes risks which would be exceptional for most of us. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: I may be wrong but, as I understand the position, under the 1964 scheme firefighters injured in the course of dealing with cases of arson have been compensated hitherto. So they are being removed from the scheme. That certainly needs to be justified. The concept of an exceptional risk is very difficult to define. There was a case which perhaps the noble and learned Lord will deal with on the basis of the scheme as proposed. A Mr. Newland fell down a staircase while fighting an arson fire in 1986. He sustained an elbow injury which became chronic and the permanent disability prevented his doing any kind of heavy work. He received £63,500 for loss of earnings, loss of pension and pain and suffering. As I see it, under the exceptional risk rule he might well receive nothing.
The unfairness of certain features of the scheme is an inherent part of the tariff. However, this is not an inherent part of the tariff; it is excluding people from being eligible. Since in the past they have been deemed appropriate subject matters for compensation and have been compensated on a generous scale, I believe that there is a very heavy onus on the Government to justify the exclusion they are proposing. I accordingly support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I find myself in a position of embarrassment on this amendment because I feel impelled to take up a point which I had hoped to be able to postpone until Third Reading. I confess that I liked neither the original scheme, the 1964 scheme, nor the tariff scheme as it originally stood—and nor, for that matter, the amended tariff scheme.
It seemed to me quite anomalous to single out victims of violent crime for exceptional social support. Let us take the example of someone who falls down and fractures his wrist as a result of slipping off a kerb. He is relegated to the normal—exiguous, it is true—social support under the social security scheme, but if he falls and fractures his wrist as a result of a violent crime he qualifies for compensation under this scheme. There seems to be no reason why that additional social support
702
should accrue. The only possible argument is that the state—the public, society—has assumed the responsibility of preventing crime and if someone suffers as a result of crime, he should then be compensated. But we do not carry that far enough if it is true because we do not compensate victims of a crime which causes financial loss or property loss, such as larceny or burglary.
Not only is there that external anomaly, but the tariff scheme itself is a mass of anomalies. The noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment referred to some of them, but there are others. If a young tearaway steals a car and, uninsured, runs into, injures and fractures the wrist of a perfectly innocent bystander, under the scheme there is no compensation for that bystander; but if someone tries to prevent the tearaway getting away and is deliberately run down, there is compensation. That seems quite anomalous when the victim suffers the same injury.
But the matter does not stop there because, as the noble and learned Lord and my noble and learned friend pointed out, there is now an additional complication of exceptional risk. I venture to think that people should be prepared to take a risk, even an exceptional risk, for the prevention of crime. I agree with my noble and learned friend that it is extremely difficult to draw a line between taking a risk and taking an exceptional risk. The risk should be taken although any intervention to prevent crime is liable to result in injury.
Therefore, my attitude throughout the Bill has been, on the whole, to vote against anything that might increase expenditure. I confess that I was not entirely consistent in supporting the previous amendment, which seemed to me to have overwhelming arguments in its favour. In the end, however, we have to make up our minds whether we are going to spend money: whether under the original scheme which has now gone by the board, under the original tariff scheme or under the tariff scheme as it has been amended to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We have to ask whether we are justified in spending that money on an exceptional social support. Are we justified in doing that at the moment when we are overspending by between £30 billion and £50 billion a year, thus incurring a debt which future generations will have to repay? Are we justified in such generosity?
I know that what I have said will be anathema to both the noble and learned Lord who is to reply and, I fear, to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am right because I note that the noble Lord is nodding his head. I was right that he disapproves. I am afraid that even someone with whom I normally find myself in agreement will disapprove also. Nevertheless, I think that it is at some stage incumbent on us to ask why we are incurring this new addition to debt through this exceptional and anomalous form of social support.
I have other reasons for objecting to the original scheme on constitutional grounds—or rather to its supersession on constitutional grounds—but I shall return to them on Third Reading. The amendment has led me to stand up to say why I cannot support it and although it is attractively phrased and although the noble and learned Lord was right to point to the grossly

703
anomalous provision which he is seeking to mitigate, the amendment would add to the expenditure which I think that we are quite unjustified in incurring at the moment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not think me discourteous if I say that it was so fundamental that it would have been more appropriate to raise on Second Reading rather than in this Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord raised a point which, as I know he is aware, has been discussed in academic circles and by various commentators over the years—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for intervening, but when he refers to "academic circles" is he entirely correct? I was repeating the arguments which were advanced originally by Professor Atiyah in 1964.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I was indeed referring to Professor Atiyah. I am sure that he would be considered to be part of "academic circles". He has discussed the matter and various logical points have been made, but the fact remains that for over 30 years governments of both parties have considered that a scheme for criminal injuries compensation was something that should be maintained and people have benefited from it. In this Bill we intend to put it on a new footing by way of a tariff scheme. Of course, points have been made against that, such as those advanced by the noble and learned Lord, but I hope that he will forgive me if I deal simply with the matters raised by the amendment.
The thinking behind this provision, which of course is not a provision with the exception of the matter relating to fire fighters which would be amended by the amendment, is that there are people such as police officers, fire fighters and other members of the emergency services whose jobs necessarily involve taking some risks in the context of apprehending people or in containing crime. They are paid and their conditions of employment are based on the fact that such risks are involved. Nonetheless, where they have taken exceptional risk, and have taken themselves outside what would be the normal aspects of their job, it seems right that they should be entitled to criminal injuries compensation, but not otherwise.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, rightly draws attention to the fact that that is changing the position of fire fighters because under the present scheme in the kind of case that the noble and learned Lord described the fire fighter would receive compensation, whereas I am happy to concede that under this kind of scheme it is likely that he would not receive it.
However worthy may be the profession of fire fighters, they are not more worthy than other members of the emergency services such as police officers and ambulance officers. If one supposes that a police officer and a fire fighter are both called out to the same fire caused by arson and are both accidentally injured by
704
stumbling on the way to the fire, or whatever it may be, the amendment would maintain what I would submit is an untenable anomaly whereby the fire fighter could claim for the injury which he had sustained but the police officer could not unless the activity had involved exceptional risk. There would be a similar contrast between fire fighters and ambulance officers. That is not an acceptable distinction. It is right that all should be on the same basis.
It is for that reason that we would resist the amendment which is directed towards fire fighters, and say that so long as the idea of exceptional risk applies—for the reasons I have given I believe it is appropriate—fire fighters should be treated in the same way as others. As the guide to the existing 1994 scheme (the one declared unlawful) made clear, in the case of members of the public who "had a go" and were injured, the approach taken would be different from that taken towards those who have been trained, such as police officers, and it would be more generous. That is the thinking behind what is in the scheme, which I believe is correct. It is also correct that fire fighters should be put on a par with others.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Perhaps I may say a word first in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. His argument, understandably, is that it is always invidious to single out a particular group of people for support. He explained that his difficulty extends to making provision for any victims of crime as against those who suffer injury in other ways. As he said, he and I frequently find ourselves shoulder to shoulder. I have the misfortune on this occasion to follow his premises but to draw a different conclusion.
I confess that I should prefer to see support for all those in need. I should like to see the criterion of support being not the occasion of the injury but the need. But he and I, I fear, are bound by the parameters of the Bill, and it may be that that is a debate which we will have to have on some future occasion.
I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord that exclusions from the Bill are not to be encouraged, for the very reason that he gave: on the whole, one should treat all alike. I thought at first that he was objecting to our singling out specifically fire fighters for special treatment. I will, if I may, return to that in a moment.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, in his reply said, "Well, some people are paid to take risks. If they join a particular profession, they agree to take those risks". Upon that, I would make two comments. First, from my reading, the exclusion in the Bill goes much wider than that. It denies compensation to the helpful passer-by whom we all wish to help. The noble and learned Lord said: "Well, we would hope that the claims officers would take a liberal view of these matters". If it is intended to assist helpful passers-by, would it not be better if we made it clear rather than made it as difficult as possible for those who want to help them'?
My second comment is that it would be equally persuasive to say that those who by way of a profession regularly take risks for the public benefit should be more

705
generously rather than less generously treated. It is a little mean to ask all the kinds of people to whom the noble and learned Lord referred—policemen, firemen, ambulance drivers—to do what is required and say, "Well, we do need them, and our everyday lives require that they should be constantly taking risks, but they are paid for it. Let's forget about them". I should have drawn the converse conclusion.
It is more difficult, I agree, to argue that firemen should be singled out. If firemen, why not ambulance drivers? Why not policemen? That I agree is a fairly difficult point to answer. In fact, if I may say so, I should be surprised if the Government were particularly endeared to fire fighters as a class since it was their trade union which initiated the litigation which led to the 1994 scheme being declared to be unlawful.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, if he will permit me to say so, provides an answer to the objection. The fire fighters have it already. What the Bill is doing is to take it away. If a justification were required, I should have thought that that would serve as a justification. However, the noble and learned Lord has put an idea into my head. Perhaps we are asking for too little, and asking for too little is always a mistake. My noble friend Lord McIntosh and I might like to consider this further, and perhaps even have discussions with the Government about it, and then consider, if necessary, what further remains to be done on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 20, leave out from ("appropriate") to end of line 22.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have hardly recovered my breath. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this amendment, we discuss Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 54 and 55. I say at once that we have put down these amendments in the interrogative mood. Amendment No. 42 relates to claims officers (the officials who are to determine claims under the scheme). Clause 3 (5)(b) provides that a claims officer:
"shall not be regarded as having been appointed to exercise functions of the Secretary of State or"—
No, I think it should be "nor":
"act on his behalf".
The reason I made that note was that I thought, grammatically, the word should perhaps be "nor". If it is going to be retained, that is something which should be drawn to the attention of the draftsman.
Our problem is that we wondered why those words had been included. If the paragraph had referred to "making decisions", then we might have felt more at peace, although I suspect we should still not have been fully clear as to what was intended, because when claims officers are making decisions they are acting judicially, as I understand it, and it would be right in some way to mark their independence. But the Bill refers to "exercising functions". Presumably, that is intended to include administrative functions. Why, we
706
ask rhetorically, does the Bill make such a fuss about those functions not being taken on behalf of the Secretary of State?
One explanation that crossed our minds was whether it was all intended to exclude the investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner—the ombudsman—and, if so, why? What do the Government believe they have to conceal? However, that does not appear in Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. None of the proceedings of those who administer the criminal injuries compensation scheme appear there, unless I have overlooked a subsequent amendment. If that is right, it would not be an authority to which the 1967 Act applies and therefore there would be no need specifically to exclude claims officers. Is that the reason? The answer appears to be no.
Moreover, in Amendment No. 60 the Government are specifically bringing certain functions under the Bill within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner. And what functions? Among others are the administrative functions of a claims officer. The amendment seeks to provide that for the purposes of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 the functions of a claims officer,
"shall be taken to be administrative functions of a government department to which this Act applies".
That refers to the 1967 Act. Therefore, in Clause 3 the Government are saying that a claims officer is not to be taken as exercising functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. In Amendment No. 60 they are saying that his function shall be taken to be a function of a government department within the 1967 Act. Perhaps it is nothing to do with the Parliamentary Commissioner but it is all very puzzling. It was in that spirit of inquiry that we set down Amendment No. 42.
Amendment No. 43 also relates to claims officers. Subsection (6) declares that:
"No decision taken by a claims officer shall be regarded as having been taken by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State".
As I said a moment ago, it is less mystifying since their decisions will be judicial, but precisely what is intended to be excluded by those words?
Amendment No. 44 relates to the scheme manager. Subsection (7) makes the same provision about him. I understand that his functions are not intended to be judicial but wholly administrative. In fact, a flash of illumination crossed my mind earlier today when the Minister said that the whole business about a scheme manager was to do with privatising the whole business of criminal injuries. If that is so, I should prefer to lay it aside for the moment because it is an evil that we can confront if ever it arises. At the moment, scheme managers are in, too, and they are not acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 54 relates to adjudicators, who are officials who will be appointed to hear appeals from claims officers. Clause 5 (4)(b) provides that they,
"shall not be regarded as having been appointed to exercise functions of the Secretary of State".
They will fall within Amendment No. 60. Amendment No. 55 relates to a similar provision about the decisions of adjudicators, who one would certainly have thought would be acting judicially.
We are puzzled and we are moving these amendments more out of curiosity than for any other reason. But when we are told the purpose of the provisions we will seek to assess their merits. At this stage of the debate we are simply seeking enlightenment. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps I may first deal with the matter relating to the ombudsman. The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the provisions of Amendment No. 60, which will insert a new clause. That is designed specifically to bring these various functions within the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That was done in order to avoid the kind of suspicion that the noble and learned Lord put forward; that the provisions here might somehow or another be directed in order to keep these matters out of the purview of the Parliamentary Commissioner. That is not the intention. Indeed, it is the intention that the Parliamentary Commissioner should have jurisdiction in respect of such matters. Of course, his jurisdiction will not extend to individual cases but to matters of maladministration. That is the general background.
I turn to the detail of the clause. I believe that when the noble and learned Lord has time to look at the wording again he will find that the grammar is correct and that it should read "or" and not "nor". Perhaps he might look at that at his leisure. As regards the justification of the provision, it is designed to keep an arm's length distance between this body and the Secretary of State in much the same way as in practice has existed with the board hitherto. It is in order to make that clear—that the body is not operating in any sense on behalf of the Secretary of State—that this particular language has been chosen. Of course, it is to make that clear that the new clause is worded in this way.
Members of the Committee will readily appreciate—and the noble and learned Lord took no difficulty in being persuaded of it—that it would be quite wrong for the functions of a claims officer in deciding cases or for a member of the adjudicators' body to in any sense be acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. That has never been the position and it would be wholly undesirable. If it were ever suggested that somehow or other decisions were final decisions taken on behalf of the Secretary of State and therefore his decisions the noble and learned Lord would have been the first to object.
The intention is to make clear that all the functions of this body—which include, in effect, functions other than the matter of decisions, which the noble and learned Lord has pointed out—are not to be regarded as functions taken on behalf of the Secretary of State. The decisions are not that; rather they are of this separate body. We believe that that is correct. The provision has been worded in this way in order to strengthen and to make clear in detail on the face of the Bill that this is the structure that has been designed. That is the reasoning behind the provision and I hope that with that explanation the noble and learned Lord will feel relatively content.
Earl Russell: I found the noble and learned Lord's reply encouraging as far as it went. However, I wish to clarify one small point. If somebody in this position
708
were sued for something relative to the discharge of his official duties would the wording in the Bill have any effect on whether his costs would be met from public funds?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As always, the noble Earl raises an acute point. Rather than give him an off-the-cuff answer which might turn out to be incorrect, perhaps he will permit me to write to him on that matter.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The noble and learned Lord has made an old man very happy. Our suspicions about the parliamentary commissioner were unworthy.
I am not sure that the remainder of what the noble and learned Lord said has set my doubts wholly at rest. I acquit the Government of any deliberate attempt to have a hidden agenda. But while the noble and learned Lord was speaking I confess I was asking myself what situation would be excluded by those words. Are they intended merely to be declaratory? Is it merely telling the world that the claims officers and others are at arm's length from the Secretary of State? One does not usually find purely declaratory words in a statute. What will be excluded?
I confess that my mind was working along the same lines as that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I wondered whether, if something were done administratively by some of the people concerned, it might mean that the Government would say that the Treasury was not going to pay the damages or the costs. I too shall be very interested to hear the answer given by the noble and learned Lord.
For the moment, I am content to leave the matter there. If the reply is less than satisfactory, we may return to the matter on Report. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 46:
Before Clause 4 insert the following new Clause—

REVIEWS
(".— (1)Where a decision has been made by a person appointed by a Scheme manager under section 3(4)(a) or by a claims officer appointed under section 3(4)(b), an applicant may apply for a review of that decision unless—

(a) the decision was itself made on a review under this section or

(b) the decision was made pursuant to a direction given on appeal under section 5 below.

(2) Any such review shall be conducted by a claims officer or other person more senior than the claims officer or other person who made the decision.
(3) The Scheme shall include provision as to time limits and methods of application for a review and as to notification to the applicant of the outcome of the review and of the reasons for the decision.
(4) In particular, an applicant may apply for a review of the following decisions made by a claims officer—

(a) not to waive any time limits in the Scheme;

709

(b) to refuse or withhold an award under the Scheme (including such decision made on reconsideration of an award);

(c) to make an award under this Scheme including—

(i) a decision to make a reduced award, whether or not on reconsideration of an award;

(ii) a decision to place a particular injury under a particular description within the Tariff;

(iii) a decision to place a particular injury at a particular Tariff level;

(iv) a decision as to the amount payable by way of an additional amount for loss of earnings, special expenses or fatal injury;

(d) not to re-open a case under the Scheme; or

(e) to seek repayment of an award under the Scheme.")

The noble and learned Lord said: I say at the outset that what I propose to say in relation to this amendment applies in its entirety and rather more forcefully to Amendment No. 48. I understand that it may be for the convenience of the Committee for the two debates to remain separate but I can spare the Committee a further speech on Amendment No. 48.
Yesterday the Committee debated which matters should be included in the Bill and which could properly be left to the scheme. Indeed, some of our debates today have touched on the same theme. At this stage I should declare an interest. The Council on Tribunals, which I have the privilege to chair, is concerned about the provisions for appeal and review.
The argument applies with much greater force to the provisions for appeal rather than those for review. However, both provisions are part of the judicial process. The Franks Committee, as long ago as 1957, declared at paragraph 40:
"We consider that tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration".
I do not believe today that anyone would seek to challenge that classification. It is our view that provisions relating to the judiciary and the judicial process should be in the body of the Bill and should not be left to the discretion of the Executive, whether or not there is a measure of parliamentary control over subordinate legislation.
Sittings of the adjudicators—they are part of this too—are sittings of a court of law. Provisions to establish a judicial process should be made by Parliament in a statute and should not be left to the Executive.
On behalf of the Council on Tribunals, I express appreciation to the Government for including in Clause 5 the bringing of the adjudicators within the supervision of the council. That is as it should be and I readily pay my tribute to the Government for what they have done. But it is not a substitute for establishing the procedure in the Bill.
In its annual report for 1992–93—I make no apology for reminding your Lordships of a quotation, part of which I used on Second Reading—the council said:
"We emphasise here, as we have in the past, that when establishing new tribunals, the Government should give due consideration to the appropriate legislative division between primary and secondary legislation. To establish a new tribunal by statutory regulation, however clear the legislative intention, does not accord with current practice. Establishment of a tribunal by Act of
710
Parliament emphasises the tribunal's independent standing which is appropriate for a body exercising adjudicative functions in relation to the statutory rights of individuals".
It is for Parliament and not for the Executive to decide on the constitution of the judiciary. For that purpose subordinate legislation, even by affirmative resolution, is not, in my understanding, within the constitution.
As regards Amendment No. 46, the provisions for review are part of what is intended as a hierarchy of appeals which should equally be included within the statute. As I say, I accept at once that the argument is not nearly as strong in relation to Amendment No. 46 as it is in relation to Amendment No. 48. I hope that on reflection the noble and learned Lord will feel that this is a matter which goes to the root of constitutional practice and to the whole doctrine of separation of powers. I hope that this matter will be reconsidered. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am very glad indeed that the noble and learned Lord tabled this amendment, which draws attention to some fairly substantial problems which we may encounter later if we do not take thought about them now.
The noble and learned Lord dealt with the problem of the distinction between the spheres of primary and secondary legislation. But we need to think also about the sphere of judicial discretion. I am aware that a formula may attempt to reduce the area of judicial discretion but in the case of the Child Support Act we have already seen that when that is done it may give rise to some quite acute problems and may on occasion inadvertently create severe injustice.
I note that the amendment deals with a decision to place a particular injury under a particular description within the tariff. I am glad that that point has been raised because it is the sort of matter with which a formula cannot cope adequately. I have in mind here a friend of mine who suffered an injury at such a point that it is a matter of debate as to whether he lost a foot or a leg. To say that that must be dealt with simply on one side of the tariff or the other shows an inflexibility and a lack of attention to evidence.
There is also a problem about whether the nature of the injury may be exactly the same for one person as it is for another. I have in mind the case in a detective story by the late Cyril Hare, otherwise his Honour Judge Gordon Clark, in which a judge, driving away from the assizes, inadvertently ran over a pedestrian. He was in a state of some anxiety until he learnt that the injury was only the destruction of the end joint of the little finger. The satisfaction lasted only until he discovered that the person concerned was the best concert pianist in England.
That is the sort of case I have in mind when I say that a flat rate tariff without any area for judicial discretion may not take into account adequately the fact that an injury is not quite identical to one person as it is to another. If the scheme is not to break down totally—and in this Chamber we must try to make legislation work

711
—it is vitally important that there should be a provision for review which allows for the exercise of real discretion based on a hearing of the evidence.
Baroness Blatch: We strayed slightly from the amendment during the latter part of the debate. I should like to make two points on the pianist who might lose even a small part of one finger which disables him in his career. First, if such a person were the best pianist in the land, it would be extraordinary for him not to have an insurance which provided for just such an injury. Secondly, it is certain that future earnings would be taken into account and that compensation would be reflected in the loss of earnings and, possibly, loss of pension.
Clause 4 of the Bill requires the scheme to include provision for reviews of decisions taken on claims for compensation and for such reviews to be carried out by a person other than the person who took the original decision. The proposed new clause would place on the face of the Bill detailed provisions concerning the circumstances in which a review may or may not be requested and on what decisions, and the requirement for a review to be carried out by a person more senior to the person who took the original decision. It would also place on the face of the Bill a requirement for the scheme to set time limits for requesting reviews and procedures for such requests and for notification of the outcome. We believe that those details are not appropriate for the face of the Bill and that some parts of the proposed new clause are misconceived.
Our intention is that under subsection (1) of Clause 4 an applicant will be able to request an administrative review by the authority of its original decision on his or her claim. This new feature was introduced in the earlier tariff scheme with a view to delivering decisions quickly, cutting out unnecessary appeals, and relieving some of the pressure on the appeals process. Reviews will also help towards quality control. Applicants will have to have been through the review process before formally appealing. There will be a time limit on applications for review and we propose to stick to the 90 days used in the earlier tariff scheme.
Under subsection (2) of Clause 4 the review will have to be carried out by someone other than the person who took the original decision. The reviewed decision may confirm the original decision or substitute a new decision. I can assure the Committee that it is our intention that the scheme will provide, as the 1994 tariff scheme provided, that reviews must be carried out by someone senior to the person who took the original decision. Indeed, it would undermine the purpose of the procedure to do otherwise.
As I said, the proposed new clause would introduce into the Bill prescriptive and technical details which are more appropriate to the scheme itself. The Bill, as I have made clear, is not intended to set down the details of the scheme. It aims to provide a power to create the scheme and set its broad shape, leaving the details to be set out in the scheme. Those who have seen the draft scheme will know that the rules of the review procedure are detailed. The various matters which the scheme describes as reviewable, cover in effect any decision which a claims officer might taken on a claim. As the
712
Committee knows, the terms of the scheme will require Parliament's approval. But if, for some unforeseen reason, it was necessary to amend these or some other details of the scheme, we do not want to have to amend legislation. Such an unwieldy process would just make for administrative complexity and delay.
We are aiming for simplicity in the language of the scheme, wherever possible, to help claimants understand it. The more the terms of the scheme consist of legal language dictated by the terms of the legislation, the more inaccessible the scheme will be for the ordinary victim.
As I have said, it is our firm intention that any review be undertaken by someone senior to the person who took the original decision. By that we mean senior in rank. The enhanced tariff scheme will make that clear. However, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would not secure that as it does not say what is meant by the phrase "more senior than". Is it someone more senior in age, senior in length of service, senior in rank or senior in experience? The Bill itself does not refer to a hierarchical body which might imply some definition of seniority. The scheme, however, will make it clear that the claims officers will be working for an established body—namely, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—in which a hierarchical structure will be recognised.
The provision in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, for the setting of time limits for applications for review, is unnecessary as Clause 3(1)(f) of the Bill already provides a general power to set time limits.
The matters against which an appeal may be made, set out in subsection (4) of the amendment, are in effect set out in the draft scheme. But we consider that the proposed new subsection (4)(c)(iii) (appeal against a decision to place a particular injury at a particular tariff level) is misconceived as it would imply a right of appeal against the tariff itself, which would first have received Parliament's approval. Of course claimants will be able to apply for a review on the grounds that their injury should have been assigned to a different injury description with a higher tariff payment. But that particular provision would be a recipe for any number of appeals which would be outside the appellate body's jurisdiction as it would have no authority whatever to change the tariff.
I have two further points to make. The first is in response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and is most important. Even given the number of descriptions that we have set down in the tariff so far and which may soon be approved by Parliament, it still may be possible to have an injury which does not fall neatly within any of those categories and to which the board deems a new description must be applied; or, indeed, the board may decide that it should fit into a particular category and a particular band. In such a case, it would be for the authority to make the determination. If necessary, that would have to be presented to the appellate body which could make an interim payment to the claimant while making a recommendation to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He would then present Parliament

713
with an amendment to the scheme. It would be for Parliament to approve the scheme, if it was deemed necessary.
Secondly, I should like simply to spell out the review system. As was said earlier, the Secretary of State remains responsible for the scheme itself but not for the individual decisions taken. The process then allows for an applicant to have an application considered and determined by the authority. If the applicant remains dissatisfied, he can request a review by a more senior officer. If he continues to be dissatisfied, he can then appeal to the appellate body. If the applicant remains unhappy, it is possible as a very longstop to resort to judicial review. If the applicant believes at any time that the administrative process has not been appropriate or that there has been some maladministration, then that person would come under the jurisdiction of the ombudsman with whom we shall be dealing in relation to a later amendment.
The roles are distinct. The appeals system is fair; indeed, it is a very sophisticated system. I also believe that we have a mechanism in place which will be subject to parliamentary approval to deal with those anomalous cases which come before the board from time to time and which do not fit neatly into the categories set out in the tariff of the scheme.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that his intervention would have been a powerful contribution to some of the issues that we debated yesterday. I hope that he will be able to participate when those debates return to the Chamber on Report. They are important themes in the Bill.
I turn now to the Minister's response. I do not believe that I introduced the amendment very well. I accept that that was my fault. However, the point of issue is not the details of the review scheme. As schemes go, it is not a bad scheme. We were faced with the difficulty of trying to bring into the Bill the essentials of what was in effect an appellate scheme, leaving the details outside the Bill. As with some of our other amendments, it was not an easy task. Perhaps we did not do it very well.
Similarly, I appreciate that the Minister's brief was prepared in advance of the debate. However, I thought that I said enough on Second Reading to indicate what was really in our minds. The points in issue were not referred to in the Minister's response. We are very largely agreed on that. What is in issue is that a judicial process should be included in a statute and not in secondary legislation. It should not be left to the Executive to decide on the functions and constitution and powers of the judiciary. It is a constitutional point that we are making.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would have used the same arguments if we were dealing with an appeal to the High Court and we were setting up a separate division of the High Court for the purpose of hearing the appeal. What troubles me is that I have a suspicion at the back of my mind that she would have done so, because from the way in which the mind of the Home Office seems to be working at the moment that could well have been in her brief. But obviously I have
714
totally failed to make clear to the noble Baroness what it is that is troubling us and for that I accept full responsibility.
What we are troubled about is the whole business of the separation of powers; what we are troubled about is the Executive making provision for judicial hearings about complaints about the Executive. There is no point in my going on at this stage. I am quite happy, if the noble Baroness would care to have a private conversation, to discuss this with her, with or without her officials. It is something to which we shall return, but this is obviously not the occasion to deal with it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down I wish to say that we on these Benches strongly support the point he has made about administrative action where judicial action is required and the enormous importance of the separation of the powers.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Reviews]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Appeals]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 48.
Page 3, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 4 and insert—

("(1) Any applicant who is aggrieved by the outcome of a review under section 4 may appeal to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel ("the Panel").

(2) The Panel should consist of adjudicators appointed by the Secretary of State, who shall be barristers or solicitors of at least 5 years standing, and the Secretary of State shall appoint one such adjudicator to be Chairman of the Panel.

(3) Appeals to the Panel shall be determined by a tribunal of three adjudicators.

(3A) Members of the Council on Tribunals shall be entitled to attend all oral hearings.

(3B) The Scheme shall include provision as to the method of appealing, the procedure to be adopted prior to and at the hearing of appeals (including the circumstances under which oral representations are to be made), time limits, the notification of appeals, the giving of reasons for decisions, and for the appointment of staff by the Secretary of State for the purpose of administering the appeal system.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In introducing Amendment No. 46 I indicated that the arguments were substantially similar to those relating to Amendment No. 48. I would only make the point that those relating to Amendment No. 48 are stronger and clearer as regards the appeals system. Amendment No. 48 is therefore a stronger amendment than Amendment No. 46. If that makes any difference to the thinking of the Government, if they see a distinction between the two, I would be happy to debate it. If they do not and if their ears are closed to the arguments, whether they relate to reviews or appeals, there seems little point in taking up the

715
Committee's time. I see from the face of the noble and learned Lord opposite that there is no distinction in the mind of the Government between the two. In the circumstances, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 3, line 40, at end insert ("and—
(c) for such appeals to be determined only after oral representations by or on behalf of the applicant if the applicant so desires.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a short and simple amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the course of dealing with a number of amendments said that the scheme involves a measure of rough justice. I accept that that is a fair description. There is no need for that rough justice to be rougher than is absolutely essential. It will be rougher than is essential if the applicant for compensation who wants an oral hearing is told he is not to have one because the Executive thinks it can manage to deal with the situation adequately on paper. My point is therefore a brief one. Any appeal procedure in which the applicant seeks an oral hearing should provide the applicant with such a hearing; otherwise there will be many quite unnecessary senses of grievance.
There is a further point. Where one is dealing essentially with a litigant in person, he or she frequently has difficulty in expressing himself clearly and in putting across to the tribunal exactly what the point is. If there is an oral hearing an experienced person should be able to discover whether or not there is a point of significance, and as was so often the case in regard to those of us who had the privilege of sitting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the Court of Appeal, the litigant in person who is listened to sympathetically and understandingly goes away convinced that although he or she has lost, he or she has had an adequate opportunity to put the case in hand, and goes away therefore without a sense of grievance. That is what this amendment is designed to prevent. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise briefly to support the spirit of this amendment. I never had the privilege of sitting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, but I had the privilege of appearing before him on many occasions and everything that has just been said by the noble and learned Lord is more than fully justified. However, if one looks at the scheme, the question is whether this amendment, which provides for the man to feel that he has had a fair crack of the whip and to be heard, should not be incorporated into the appeals procedure under paragraphs 52 and 53. One has to draw a distinction between the other appeals under paragraph 69. In those other appeals,
"The appellant, the claims officer appearing on behalf of the authority and the adjudicators may call witnesses to give evidence and may cross examine them".
It is almost inherent in that that the appellant in this type of rehearing should be able to be heard, and that which is implicit should be made plain in paragraph 69. The amendment which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, proposes is not a rehearing amendment; he draws a fair and perfectly proper distinction between
716
what is a kind of rehearing under paragraph 69 and the right of the appellant to be heard and to feel that he has had his say under the other paragraphs. I respectfully suggest that this is not a matter to be dealt with in primary legislation for the reasons I have given. It could be so easily addressed at a later stage of these proceedings in a proposed redraft of the scheme.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: If it is not presumptuous of me I rise simply to express my unqualified support for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I do not dissent from what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is not a matter on which I would go to the stake either way, but the important thing from our point of view on these Benches is that we wholly support the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I assume that the reason the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has put down the amendment at this place in the Bill is that the effect would be to require such a provision to be in the scheme. Of course if it were in the scheme the noble and learned Lord would be equally happy, so I do not think it matters in which technical way one considers that. I fully understand the thinking behind the amendment. Let me say straight away that we envisage that in the vast majority of cases an oral hearing would be heard by the panel. Nonetheless, as the noble and learned Lord appreciates, his amendment goes much further and would require that in every case where it were required, requested or desired by the applicant, there should be such a hearing. That means that, however unmeritorious a case may be, there would be a requirement for such a hearing.
From his unparalleled experience the noble and learned Lord drew attention to questions which arose when he was sitting, for example, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and where party appellants appeared. I accept that there may be such cases. I am certain that when one looks at the criteria contained in the scheme, where it is thought that there is something to be said for an appeal there will be such a hearing. However, one has also to deal with those cases where it is perfectly plain that there is nothing to be said for an appeal and that the case is completely unmeritorious and will remain so.
For example, suppose there was an unqualified admission by an appellant, accepted below and on review—one must remember that such cases would all have been reviewed—that he had provoked the fight in which he had been injured. Suppose that he appealed on the grounds that it was not proper for a reduction to be made on that basis. Self-evidently that appeal could not succeed because it would be completely wrong. Nothing said at a hearing could justify the proposition that the adjudicator was not entitled to make a reduction.
To require that if the appellant says that he desires a hearing there should be a hearing would be to expend a great deal of time and energy on a matter which could not succeed. On the contrary, it might raise hopes on the part of the appellant which could never be fulfilled.
Therefore, although I appreciate that the insistence on a hearing could in some cases have the psychological effect to which the noble and learned Lord drew

717
attention, nevertheless that would be too dearly bought. The scheme should provide for a system which deals efficiently and speedily with appeals. Time and resources should be expended on appeals which have a good chance or some chance of success rather than on those appeals which could not in their nature ever succeed.
Although I understand the reason behind the amendment I believe that it goes too far and that what is envisaged here would not work satisfactorily. Rather, we believe that it is correct that the matter should be left to the discretion of the appeals panel. Applying the approach set out in the scheme would mean that there would be oral hearings where that would have a practical effect. However, it would be wrong to give a right to such hearings even in cases where such an appeal could never succeed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him a question. If limited to paragraphs 52 and 53 how does what he said stand up? Under paragraphs 52 and 53, in an appeal against review under paragraph 58 one has to put in a notice of appeal and give one's reasons. In those circumstances, why on earth should not the man be entitled to appear and say something, albeit limited to his written reasons, and to elaborate on those reasons and so feel that he has been heard? This is not a question of a sifting mechanism. The noble and learned Lord seems to think that we are dealing with a sifting mechanism for restrictive trade practices or something of that kind. It is nothing like that. I hope that my noble and learned friend will look at paragraphs 52 and 53 again and give a more positive response on that narrow point.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord has given what, on an administrative level, is a perfectly rational answer. However, he has failed to respond to the human dimension of the argument put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The argument that a hearing contributes to consent is a very powerful one which is within the experience of all of us. Government by consent is a much more tender plant than we often think. It is far more easily destroyed than we sometimes realise. Once it is destroyed it is not easily recovered. One sees in some neighbourhoods of some towns in some countries what the effects may be when consent is destroyed.
I admit that appeals which may have no chance of success may have a cost. I admit that that cost has to be counted. However, we also have to count the cost of what may happen if we do not give people a hearing. We in this place know quite well the financial and, on occasion, human costs of security. The costs of appeal may in some circumstances be in all ways preferable.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Of course I accept, as I did in replying to the noble and learned Lord, that the giving of a hearing may have a psychological effect in individual cases. Nonetheless, I said, I did not believe that that was a sufficient reason for us to accept the
718
amendment, especially when it would mean that those who have good grounds for appeal are likely to have the disposal of those appeals delayed by hearings which could not serve any useful purpose and could not lead to success. I fully understand the psychological case, but we do not believe that that is a sufficient reason for proceeding in this way.
To respond to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I have read paragraph 52, and also paragraphs 61 onwards which deal with this kind of case. It is because the grounds of appeal will be notified and can be considered that there may be cases which, it can be seen, will not succeed. I gave an admittedly extreme example of such a case. I accept that one could argue that nonetheless in such cases, for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, one might opt for the psychologically healing effects of having such a hearing. However, for the reasons I have given, the Government do not believe that those effects are sufficient to make this a desirable amendment.
Lord Ackner: There is a decision of the former Vice Chancellor, Sir Edward Megarry, the name of which escapes me, in which he said that the law reports are littered with cases originally thought to be open and shut which in the circumstances turned out to be neither. The phrase "however unmeritorious, are we to allow an oral hearing?" shows a potentially closed mind by the administration.
If it is so clear from the notice of appeal that there are no valid grounds, how many minutes would it take to say to the would-be appellant "Look, Mr. Brown," as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would have done, "Your problem is that you do not have a case, because of A, B or C". How long would it take to get over that particular hurdle? With an experienced tribunal, would it take three minutes or five minutes? That is all we are arguing about—the expenditure of a matter of minutes in order to send away a dissatisfied applicant with at least the feeling that he has had his day, or his five minutes, in court. In a situation in which, as has been conceded by the noble Baroness, a system replete with rough justice—my phrase—one should bend over backwards to ensure that there is no risk of that permeating the appeals system.
It is for that reason that I moved the amendment. It is clear that the Government are insistent that they will have none of it. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment with a view to reading the exact justification and possibly reculer pour mieux sauter at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert ("except so far as the provision relates to functions of persons mentioned in subsection (3)(d)(ii)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 50, I speak also to Amendment No. 52.
These amendments may seem a little obscure, but they have a simple purpose. They are intended to allow claims officers, or staff appointed by the scheme manager, to act as presenting officers at appeals.
Clause 5 provides the framework for the independent appeals system that will operate under the enhanced tariff scheme. As under the 1990 scheme, and the 1994 tariff scheme, we envisage that cases will be presented to the appeals panel by presenting officers. Their job—I stress this—will be to present the facts of the case and to facilitate the appeals process.
We also envisage that the presenting officers will be claims officers (or staff appointed by the scheme manager). However, the Bill as presently drafted confines their functions to determining claims. These amendments will allow them to act as presenting officers as well.
The first amendment overcomes the obstacle in subsection 5(2) which, as drafted, specifically prohibits the scheme manager from having any responsibility for the appeal process. The amendment provides the necessary exception in respect of presenting officer duties. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I understand what the noble and learned Lord said about the operation of the scheme. At Second Reading we raised a question on the use of the words, "if a scheme manager is appointed". Nothing has been done about that. It has not been put the other way: that a scheme manager shall be appointed. The system which the noble and learned Lord outlined depends on the existence of a scheme manager, an appointment which is not compulsory under the terms of the Bill. I may be misreading it, but I should have thought that some consideration should be given to the words, "if a scheme manager is appointed". It could provide that a scheme manager shall be appointed.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: One never knows precisely what line the Labour Party will take on contracting out. However, I do not believe that it is wholly in favour of it. I understood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say earlier that the Labour Party would be opposed to it.
The words, "if a scheme manager is appointed" allows for the possibility of contracting out. I stress that at present there is no intention to do so. The position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay—to require a scheme manager to be appointed—would require the Government to proceed on the basis of contracting out, which I suspect that he would not wish to do at present.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I was not making a political point but purely a drafting point.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 51 was grouped yesterday with Amendments Nos. 21 and 35. I did not speak to it. I believe the noble Baroness will agree that I reserved any observations I had on Amendment No. 51 in order to put the argument in its chronological place. Accordingly, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
Baroness Blatch: Again I am baffled by the amendment. I fail to see what useful purpose would be achieved by it. All that it does is to make mandatory rather than discretionary for the scheme to include a particular provision. Making that provision mandatory adds nothing to Parliament's understanding of the Secretary of State's arrangements which have already been set out very clearly in the draft scheme which was published and circulated widely in August. Nor does it provide any additional protection either for the victims or the Government. The amendment shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of the clause concerned, which is to provide an illustration of one way in which the Secretary of State may exercise the power conferred on him by Clause 1. It would not be appropriate to lay down a mandatory requirement for which provision must be included in the scheme for ever more, whether or not it is appropriate.
Again I remind the Committee that Parliament will have the final say over the scheme and will thereby have an opportunity to approve its detailed provisions. As the noble Lord knows, it is also possible for the measure to be amended in future. I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I shall read with interest what she said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
("(d) for specified functions in relation to appeals to be conferred on—

(i) claims officers; or

(ii) persons appointed by the Scheme manager as mentioned in section 3(4)(a).").

Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) to ensure that at least one member appointed under paragraph (c) is trained in Scots law").
The noble Lord said: It is a simple amendment. It ensures that the interests of Scots law are preserved within the scheme. It ensures that at least one member appointed under paragraph (c) is trained in Scots law. The scheme is a United Kingdom scheme. We have two different systems of law. It is important that someone trained in Scots law should be part of the team.
As the noble and learned Lord will know, at present fatal cases are dealt with in England by English members of the board; and fatal cases in Scotland are dealt with by Scottish members of the board. The amendment is simple and ensures that that distinction is maintained. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The amendment as printed on the Marshalled List refers to those people appointed under subsection(3)(c) who are members of staff. Members of staff serve administrative functions. There is no need for them to be trained in Scots law or

721
any other system of law. I believe that the noble Lord was dealing with the question of those who adjudicate upon matters. That is dealt with in paragraph (a)
Some of the members of the appeals panel will be appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is envisaged that seven or eight of the appeals panel members out of a membership of between 40 and 50 will be appointed by him. I believe the noble Lord knows that the practice has always been to appoint members of the legal profession of Scotland to the scheme. It is the intention that that should continue to be the practice: that there will indeed be members of the legal profession of Scotland appointed to the new appeals panel. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. It is a somewhat fast ball that the amendment refers to paragraph (a) rather than paragraph (c). I hope that the undertaking that there will be a place for the special standing of the Scottish legal system within the administration of the criminal injuries compensation scheme will be noted in the appropriate places. In the light of the undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("under this section").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. Clause 5(9) makes it clear beyond doubt that the scheme may include provision for adjudicators to reduce awards where they consider that an appeal is frivolous or vexatious. This minor technical amendment to delete the words "under this section" is necessary since appeals are not in fact determined under the Act itself, but in accordance with the provisions of the scheme which is to be made under the powers conferred by Clause 1 of the Act. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert ("and the applicant had received warning prior to the determination of the appeal that the appeal was at risk of being considered so to be").
The noble Lord said: This is a relatively minor amendment which relates to the provision under Clause 5(9) which provides for a reduction of the amount of compensation if in the opinion of the adjudicator,
"the appeal is frivolous or vexatious".
We do not object to that; the principle is common in law and valuable. But the scheme is liable to deal with a large number of people who have little experience of the law or of the kind of procedures which the scheme will involve for them. It seems not unreasonable for the appellant to be given a warning if the appeal is at risk
722
of being considered to be "frivolous or vexatious". It is not a point of great importance, but one which the Government may wish to take on board. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter on which one may wish to reflect as to how it may be handled in practice. As the noble Lord will appreciate and as was indicated earlier on, there will be cases where the decision to dismiss the appeal will be taken at an earlier stage without a hearing. The appeal will appear to be vexatious right from the outset and therefore one will have to warn the people before they put in the appeal. In another case the fact that it was vexatious might only appear during the hearing, for example, where the appeal was based on the idea that a person had no previous conviction, whereas the claim had been determined on the basis that he had. In the course of the hearing, when it became apparent that he had a conviction and the appeal was therefore completely unfounded and he was acting fraudulently, that would be the most appropriate point at which to warn him. There are difficulties in knowing how to deal with the problem.
It seems to me that we should draw attention to the matter in the guide which will be provided for the Act. However, when people are sent the form which allows them to appeal, it might be advisable for a leaflet accompanying it to contain a warning, or for a warning to be on the face of the form about the provision. There are various ways of dealing with the point. We would wish to reflect on it and it should be dealt with administratively. We have thought about the point and will wish to consider it further to ascertain how it can best be dealt with.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That seems reasonable to me and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Annuities]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) In this section "the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme" means—

(a) the scheme established by arrangements made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995; or

(b) arrangements made by the Secretary of State for compensation for criminal injuries and in operation at any time before the commencement of that scheme." ").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment fulfils the promise made in another place to extend the benefits of structured settlements to applicants under the current, common law damages scheme (or any previous version of it) whose claims have not yet been settled.
As the Committee knows, structured settlements can be a highly advantageous way of paying compensation to victims in higher value cases. It affords them the option of receiving their award, not as a lump sum, but in the form of a stream of periodic payments under an

723
annuity. These payments will be tax-free, and can be index-linked, thereby providing guaranteed payments for life, or other specified period.
Under the Bill as it stands, that facility would only be available to claimants under the new, enhanced tariff scheme to be made under the Bill's powers. This amendment will extend that facility to claimants under the present scheme by widening the definition of the words,
"the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme".
This amendment will necessitate a complementary change to the 1990 scheme to allow payment of compensation by the purchase of annuities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make the necessary change to the 1990 scheme on the day this Bill receives Royal Assent. He will confirm this in the usual way by Written Statement in the other place. I beg to move.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 9 insert the following new Clause—
JURISDICTION OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION
(".—(1) In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, insert after section 11A—
"The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
11B.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, administrative functions exercisable by an administrator of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme ("Scheme functions") shall be taken to be administrative functions of a government department to which this Act applies.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the following are administrators of the Scheme—

(a) a claims officer appointed under section 3(4)(b) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995;

(b) a person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of that Act;

(c) the Scheme manager, as defined by section 1(4) of that Act, and any person assigned by him to exercise functions in relation to the Scheme.

(3) The principal officer in relation to any complaint made in respect of any action taken in respect of Scheme functions is—

(a) in the case of action taken by a claims officer, such person as may from time to time be designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph;

(b) in the case of action taken by a person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of the Act of 1995, the chairman appointed by the Secretary of State under section 5(3)(b) of that Act; or

(c) in the case of action taken by the Scheme manager or by any other person mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of this section, the Scheme manager.

(4) The conduct of an investigation under this Act in respect of any action taken in respect of Scheme functions shall not affect—

(a) any action so taken; or

(b) any power or duty of any person to take further action with respect to any matters subject to investigation."

(2) In Schedule 3 to the Act of 1967 (matters not subject to investigation), insert after paragraph 6B—
"6C. Action taken by any person appointed under section 5(3)(c) of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, so far as that action is taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether express or implied), of any person acting in his capacity as an adjudicator appointed under section 5 of that Act to determine appeals."
(3) The amendments made by this section do not affect the following provisions of this Act—
724

(a) section 3(5)(b);

(b) section 3(7)(b);

(c) section 5(4)(b).").

The noble Baroness said: During the earlier stages of this Bill we gave an undertaking, in another place, that we would consider carefully whether the administration of the new scheme should be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—more commonly known as the ombudsman. We concluded that it should, and this new clause gives effect to that decision.
We firmly intend that the new scheme should be run as effectively and efficiently as possible, and mechanisms will be built in to facilitate this. For instance, the authority will be required to set standards of performance and targets, and will have to report on how it has measured up to them in its annual report. There will also be a fully developed and effective complaints procedure, so that claimants who feel their case has been badly handled can make a formal complaint in the sure expectation that it will be speedily and properly investigated.
But, despite that, we accept that applicants who believe their case has been subject to maladministration should have a means of seeking external reassurance. That is why we agree that the ombudsman should be allowed to investigate such cases.
The ombudsman will not of course be able to investigate the merits of the decision taken in any case. That is not his role, and he is specifically precluded from doing so by the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. But he will be able to investigate the administrative actions of the staff taking those decisions, and report as to whether there was, or was not, any maladministration in their handling of the case. I beg to move.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: This matter has already been the subject of our discussions. As the noble Baroness said, it was a suggestion made by colleagues in another place; the Government listened and the Bill has been improved. We are grateful.
Clause 10 [Parliamentary control]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 6, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 38 and insert—
("Before making the Scheme, the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of it before Parliament.
(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make the Scheme unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.
(2) Before making any alteration to the Tariff or to any provision of').
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 61, perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 inclusive. The amendments change significantly the extent of Parliament's control over the scheme. At present the Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the tariff, and any subsequent alterations to it, before Parliament. It also requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament statements of other key provisions made by the scheme; namely, those bearing on quantum.
It has been argued in another place and elsewhere that this leaves too much control in the hands of the Executive and that Parliament should retain greater control over the new arrangements. We have reflected further on this and have been persuaded by the force of those arguments. The amendments proposed therefore will give Parliament, rather than the Executive, final control over every aspect of the new scheme.
Under the new amendments the Secretary of State would be required to lay a draft of the whole scheme—in its entirety—before Parliament. He would not be able to make the scheme until that draft had been approved by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. Thus specific parliamentary approval would be required for every aspect of the new arrangements.
Once the new scheme was up and running, any changes to it, however minor, would also be subject to parliamentary control. Changes to the tariff itself and to key features of the scheme would require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while changes to the more minor and routine features would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We believe that that strikes the right balance. It requires Parliament positively to approve changes to the more important aspects of the scheme, while leaving Parliament the choice as to whether changes to more minor matters should go through with or without a debate and vote.
The amendments now make it quite clear where ultimate control over the scheme rests. The Executive will still be able to propose changes but it cannot give them effect without recourse to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We anticipated this debate early yesterday afternoon when discussing the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. We have all expressed our gratitude to the Government for the concession that has been made, in that the whole of the original scheme and tariff will be laid before Parliament for the affirmative resolution procedure.
At the risk of being ungrateful, I should like to make two points. First, the Committee will be well aware that the affirmative resolution procedure is very much inferior as a form of opportunity for Parliament to debate and amend legislation than legislation on the face of the Bill. There is always a trade-off between flexibility and administrative convenience, but we have attempted to show in the course of the debate on this Bill that administrative convenience and flexibility have been put to the fore at the expense of parliamentary accountability and responsibility. We regret that. Secondly, although in the amendments moved by the Minister the original tariff and scheme—which perhaps may be termed the first shot at them—come before Parliament in their entirety, alterations come before Parliament only if they fall under the headings of Clause 10(2). Those by no means cover all of the important issues that we have debated over the past day and a half. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that our approach to Report stage will to a considerable extent consist of an attempt to persuade the House that there
726
are other important matters which ought to be included in the affirmative resolution procedure when they come forward as alterations. But, with those warnings, we are grateful for the amendments so far as they go.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 63 to 66:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert ("the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of the provision as proposed to be altered.").
Page 7, line 3, leave out subsection (3).
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (2)").
Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
("(4A) Whenever any other provision of the Scheme is altered, the Secretary of State shall lay a statement of the altered provision before Parliament.
(4B) If any statement laid before either House of Parliament under subsection (4A) is disapproved by a resolution of that House passed before the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the date on which the statement was laid, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) make such alterations in the Scheme as appear to him to be required in the circumstances; and

(b) before the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the date on which the resolution was made, lay a statement of those alterations before Parliament.

(4C) In calculating the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (4B), any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days shall be disregarded.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 en bloc.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REVIEW
(". The Secretary of State shall in consultation with the body of adjudicators review annually the Scheme and the Tariff and shall lay before Parliament annually alterations to the standard amounts of compensation set out in the Tariff to reflect changes in the Retail Price Index occurring in the preceding year.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 68 is concerned with future up-rating for inflation. In a sense, the administration of this amendment is made easier by the amendments to Clause 10 which have just been agreed. The history of the matter is a little complicated and I will not do any more than summarise it. Basically, the original tariff was based on median awards for 1991 to 1992. The Government claim that the original tariff has been up-rated by 19 per cent. from the median figures to bring it up to date. I accept that that may bring it up to date for the present time, but the proposal is that the tariff levels will be reviewed only every three years rather than every year. Therefore, the tariff will not be reviewed for inflation until April 1999, three years after the date when the scheme is expected to come into effect. Until 1999 we will still be working on the 1994 figures even though they have been updated from the 1991 to 1992 review. It is fairly clear that, whichever

727
Government are in power and however successful attempts to control inflation may be, there is a possibility that by 1st April 1999 the scheme will be out of date in financial terms.
We now have a provision that the original scheme, and a considerable number of alterations to it, must come before Parliament. I believe it is logical and in line with many other financial arrangements laid down in secondary legislation that the Secretary of State should, in consultation with the body of adjudicators, review the scheme and the tariff and lay before Parliament annually alterations to the standard amounts of compensation to reflect changes in the retail prices index that have occurred in the preceding year. This is commonly done. The Order Paper of your Lordships' House, if not perhaps the time on the Floor, is cluttered up with statutory instruments which update legislation for inflation. I think immediately of the assisted places scheme. That has always been updated every year, because the Government have a political interest in doing so. Surely, there is nothing exceptional or extraordinary about proposing that this scheme should also be updated every year in line with inflation. The Government would obtain better understanding of and credibility for the scheme if they agreed to this relatively minor amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: We are quite happy to consult the panel as necessary or to receive their advice at any time that they wish to give it. Indeed, to reflect that we amended the Bill in another place. We have also undertaken to keep the operation of the scheme under general review, and specifically to review the tariff levels themselves every three years. We think that is quite sufficient and offers all the flexibility needed for a straightforward, tariff-based scheme. There is already a very considerable element for future inflation built into the tariff. The levels of the 1994 tariff scheme were based on previous board awards after a very generous allowance had been made for inflation. Indeed, in the event that allowance proved to be quite over generous. Those 1994 tariff levels included an element for loss of earnings and care. That has not been stripped away from the awards as the noble Lord is aware. Such elements are now to be paid separately in addition in the more serious cases. But we have not stripped those elements out of the tariff levels for the new scheme, which are the same as those in the 1994 tariff. They are therefore higher than they might otherwise have been. As such, they effectively include a significant cushion against future inflation.
There is therefore no case for reflating the tariff levels for the first three years of the new scheme's operation; nor is there any case for annual up-rating thereafter. With low future inflation, any potential loss that claimants might suffer from a three year review cannot be very great. I should also point out that where loss of earnings and special care are payable, those elements will go up automatically in line with wages and the cost of care. A very good proportion of the awards will be inflation-proofed. We believe that a three-year review is sufficient to be fair to all claimants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course, the amendment does not say anything about loss of earnings payments. We recognise that loss of earnings payments will go up in line with inflation. The amendment concerns the standard amounts provided for in the tariff.
It is an extraordinary argument put forward by the Government that they have already over-provided in the existing scheme because they have included loss of earnings once and then provided for them separately a second time. In any normal business one would say that anybody who over-provides in that way and then claims, as a result of that over provision, that they do not need to think about it again for three years should go back and re-write their budget.
I was brought up working for the General Electric Company. We had a standard rule that factory prices had to go down by 10 per cent. every year: in other words, there was a constant struggle to reduce costs. I sometimes wonder what Mr. Waldegrave is doing if he is not paying attention to proceedings on the Floor of the Chamber in Parliament and the Government claim that they have been extravagant now in order to avoid uprating the payments in future years.
The Government cannot get away from that dilemma by resisting the amendment. The only honourable way for the Government to deal with the matter is to reduce the amounts to a figure which does not account for loss of earnings and then make adequate provision for uprating in the future. Perhaps Mr. Waldegrave would approve of that rather more.
I shall be interested to see whether, in the light of our discussions, there will be any changes in the revised tariff when it is put before Parliament. It is too tempting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Repeal of the 1988 Act scheme and transitional provisions]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert ("or until 1st April 1996").
The noble Lord said: This is a rotten amendment. It is badly worded because I meant to say that the date on which the scheme comes into force should be not later than 1st April 1996 rather than saying,
"or until 1st April 1996".
Because it is a rotten amendment, I shall not press it.
However, it provides an opportunity for me to express my gratitude to the Minister for making the scheme available and for the fact that the scheme says, in paragraph 1,
"Applications received on or after 1st April 1996 for the payment of compensation…will be considered under the following provisions of this Scheme".
It would have been nice if that commencement date, like most commencement dates, had been included on the face of the Bill rather than in a scheme. But if the Minister confirms that it is the Government's inalienable intention that the scheme shall start not later than 1st April 1996, that will be helpful. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I absolutely confirm that our intention is to have the scheme up and running by 1st April 1996. Our difficulty with the amendment is that it would provide an absolute deadline in legislation. If, in its wisdom, Parliament decided not to accept the scheme and sent it away for redetermination, there would be a delay and following 1966 we would be without a scheme. It would then be impossible for an applicant to make an application because there would not be a scheme. It is a safeguard against the possibility of missing the deadline to make sure that there is a scheme in place in order for applicants to make applications.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 7, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 71 seeks to delete Clause 11 (3), which reads,
"At any time before the commencement date, the Secretary of State may make such alterations to the current arrangements as he considers appropriate".
"Current arrangements" are defined in Clause 11 (2). I listened to what the noble Baroness said in relation to Clause 10 and am wondering whether a drafting problem exists in this regard, too. Also, should the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 11(3) be made subject to the provisions of Clause 10? Otherwise, the Secretary of State has a free hand to do whatever he likes with the present arrangements—the common law scheme—without any parliamentary scrutiny whatever. He can walk into the House tomorrow and make an announcement that awards have been reduced to whatever level he wishes and there would be no parliamentary scrutiny of any alterations and no provision for consultation.
The amendment is a probing amendment. It could be more happily worded in the light of the commencement date of the new scheme. The provision seems to give the Secretary of State complete power to do what he likes without parliamentary scrutiny. As has been said more than once in the course of debates today and yesterday, that is a dangerous innovation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall be fascinated to hear the Minister's reply to my noble friend's amendment. It occurs to me, looking at Clause 11, that subsection (2) provides that, for the first time in 31 years, the current scheme should have a statutory basis rather than being on the basis of royal prerogative. I think that should be celebrated.
Baroness Blatch: I had intended to refer to the past 30 years and say that the records of the various Home Secretaries have been rather good ones and it is a short time to go for the demise of the scheme.
The aim of subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 11 is to make it clear beyond doubt that there is a power both to run the 1990 scheme and to make alterations to it in the period between Royal Assent and the coming into force of the enhanced tariff scheme in 1996. If we are to continue to operate the 1990 scheme in that period—of
730
course it is essential for victims that we should be able to do so—then clearly we must also have a power to make any changes that may prove necessary. In the nature of things I cannot specify now precisely how that essential contingency power might be used because it is just that; a contingency power. But I can perhaps give two examples.
In discussion on Clause 8 earlier in Committee, I pointed out that if we were to be able to make structured settlements available to claimants under the 1990 scheme we would have to change the 1990 scheme itself to make that possible. If we had not been far-sighted enough to realise this before the Bill was passed and make the necessary change it would have been open to question—if the amendment had been accepted—whether we would then have been able to change the scheme and thus give practical effect to the amendment made to the clause. In such circumstances the victims thereby disbarred from benefiting from structured settlements would no doubt have been quick to inform the noble Lord of their feelings when they learnt that he had been the sponsor of the amendment that had the effect of excluding them.
Another example might be where it was necessary to make a minor change to the scheme in response to external factors over which we had no control. An amendment to the Channel Tunnel Order making a minor change to territorial limits is a case in point. Unless we retained a power to amend the 1990 scheme we might be unable to make the change necessary to ensure that someone criminally injured in a part of the tunnel or control zones not previously regarded as part of Great Britain was able to qualify under the scheme. That is why the amendment is not acceptable. It must be clear beyond doubt that we have a power to change the 1990 scheme when needs dictate and I accordingly ask for the noble Lord's indulgence not to press the amendment and to see reason in my argument.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble Baroness can have my indulgence any time she wishes. I am grateful for her response. However, I find it self-contradictory. Clause 11 (2) says,
"The arrangements for compensation for criminal injuries in operation immediately before the passing of this Act ('the current arrangements') shall continue in force until the date on which the Scheme comes into force ('the commencement date')"—
namely, the projected date of 1st April, 1996. Having put that on the face of the Bill, a free hand is given to the Secretary of State in Clause 11(3) which says,
"At any time before the commencement date, the Secretary of State may make such alterations to the current arrangements as he considers appropriate".
I wonder whether Clause 11(3) is necessary. It is no doubt a matter for legal debate but for the life of me I cannot see how Clause 10 and Clause 11 can be reconciled. I shall read with interest what the noble Baroness said and no doubt we can return to the matter at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 72:
Page 7, line 17, after ("date") insert ("or before the date one month after the passing of this Act, whichever is the earlier.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment was debated yesterday so there is no need to speak to it again. But I give notice that I shall have some concluding remarks on Clause 12 stand part.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Short title and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Windlesham: There is one feature of the Bill, which when enacted may be cited under Clause 12 as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, which has puzzled me. I refer to the absence of any mention whatever throughout the Bill of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That will be the public body which next April will succeed the present Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and will have the responsibility for administering a very large public undertaking. It will have a staff of more than 500 people and the estimated total of the public funds which it will handle over the five years from 1996 to 2001 is £1.7 billion.
I inquired of the noble Baroness what was to be the status of this new authority. She replied that it had been decided that it would be a non-departmental public body rather than an agency. She drew my attention to the thinking that had been set out in the White Paper—Cmnd. 2434—in 1993 which preceded the introduction of the original tariff scheme in 1994 and said that that reasoning still stood. On looking at the extract from the White Paper, it rehearsed a number of alternative forms of status, including a non-departmental public body, an agency of government or bringing the administration within central government. The White Paper said that that option had been discounted because the Government's policy is to devolve functions rather than to take on new ones. It said of agency status that it would have brought the administration of the scheme closer to government than is the case now when the board has national departmental public body status.
That status is entirely appropriate in many ways. It is the same status that the Parole Board has by statute. It is the same status that the new Criminal Cases Review Commission, which was enacted only earlier in this Session, has; and, indeed, it was the status by statute which this very scheme had when it was enacted originally in 1988 in the Criminal Justice Act, which, as we all know, was never implemented. In each case those public bodies were to be incorporated bodies contained in statute. Yet in this Bill there is no mention of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.
I have made some inquiries as to what form it is expected to take. Will the authority have members? Boards and authorities have members. The answer is that it will not. Will it have a chairman? The answer is that it will not. Who, therefore, will administer this huge undertaking? The answer is that civil servants will administer it. To whom will they be responsible? Nominally, there is an authority, but it is invisible. It
732
does not appear to have any identifiable form at all. So may I leave the noble Baroness with my final words at this stage of the Bill. Does this status have any meaning at all, or is it misleading Parliament and the public to call it a public authority? If the case is that compensation should be handled by central government and civil servants as a department of government, why not say so?
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend poses a number of questions. He is correct that the only reference to the authority is not on the face of the Bill but is in fact included in the scheme. I shall take all of the questions posed by my noble friend. I shall give him a full reply and copy it to all interested Peers.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Charities (Amendment) Bill
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to introduce this Bill to your Lordships' House following its consideration in another place. The Bill arises out of the recommendations of the deregulation task force and seeks to add one subsection to Section 96 of the Charities Act 1993. This is a small but very worthwhile change. It has the support, too, of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The effect will be to enable the Charity Commission to direct that for all or any of the purposes of the Act two or more charities with the same trustees shall be treated as a single charity.
This country can rightly be proud of its long tradition of charitable work and of charitable giving. As Saint Paul said in his First Epistle to the Corinthians: Faith, hope and charity, but of these three, charity is the greatest. But charity, like anything else, must be efficient to be effective. So an effective framework of law which sets a sensible balance between regulation and freedom from requirements is necessary, taking into account the widely differing circumstances of different charities.
What is now the Charities Act 1993 represents an important updating of that framework, including as it does some strengthening of the powers of the Charity Commission to protect charitable property and to put charity accounts and their scrutiny on a modern statutory footing. That accounting framework will shortly be brought into force. My noble friend may wish to comment at a later stage of this debate to bring your Lordships up-to-date on the Government's progress.
Change is by no means confined to the statutory framework in which charities operate. The Charity Commission is also undergoing a significant programme of modernisation with increasing effort going into the support of good, charitable practice. New procedures are being put into place to monitor the accounts and other information that will be submitted under the new accounting framework. There will also be a new senior

733
management structure following a recent review. It is against that backdrop that this Bill seeks to make a slight change to the way in which the Charity Commission can operate in relation to charities and the way in which trustees can report to the commission.
In most cases charities are operated as a self-standing organisation by a group of trustees who do not meet to run any other charity. However, there are circumstances where the same group of trustees are responsible for a number of charities and some measure of joint administration would be entirely sensible. It is exactly for such circumstances that this Bill is envisaged. When a group of trustees see it to be appropriate, they will be able to approach the Charity Commission and ask it to make an order—let us call it a unifying order—to fit the particular circumstances. This has the potential to avoid a lot of unnecessary work where it could not be justified. The provision is not specific to any particular class of charity other than the requirement for all those concerned to have common trustees. But I understand that the new power would be of particular advantage in relation to charities administered within the National Health Service.
There are over 60,000 such charities in the hands of the health service bodies; health authorities, trust hospitals and similar. Such bodies are trustees for all the charities they administer, which can be as many as several hundred. The need for this provision will become particularly important once the requirements of the charity accounting framework are in force because, as matters stand at present, a separate annual report and accounts would have to be submitted to the Charity Commission for each and every charity in the care of the health service body.
Under the new power proposed in this Bill each body would be able to submit a single report and set of accounts in respect of all the charities in its care. This will save everyone a great deal of work, time and money. However, I hasten to reassure your Lordships that the separate accountability for the funds of each component charity in a group formed under this power would remain. Indeed, use of the power would not form a combined charity at all, but would simply enable each group to be treated as a single charity. No change would be made to the legal status of each charity in the group. Money raised or donated to a particular component charity would have to remain there or spent by the charity in accordance with its own trust deed and the terms of the donation under the provisions of the general law on trusts.
There is an important if not complicated point on excepted charities. The Charity Commission has given an assurance to charities which are excepted from the need to register. They would not be forced, under a unifying order, to link them with a non-excepted charity and thereby requiring the excepted charity to register. Indeed, that is a matter of law since the power to register an excepted charity is only exercisable by the Charity Commission at the express request of the excepted charity.
734
During the debate on this Bill in another place a question was raised about whether this Bill would allow for the situation where one charity is administered by another charity as trustee. The view taken by the Charity Commission was that this circumstance is covered by the existing power in Section 96(5) of the 1993 Act. The commission will be pleased to respond to any individual inquiries from charities who might consider seeking to have the power in Section 96(5) or the power that this Bill proposes to create, as Section 96(6).
It was said that F. E. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, after a very complicated case, which he summed up brilliantly as usual, flashed back when the judge admitted that he was none the wiser than when he started. "Possibly not, my Lord, but far better informed". I have tried this evening to explain with some care a rather complicated matter why this Bill has been drafted and how it will be used to the clear advantage and benefit of charities and therefore of their beneficiaries. It is a very short and straightforward measure. If I can reassure your Lordships further on any matter, I shall be pleased to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—
(Baroness Rawlings.)
7.16 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we all thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of this Bill which has left us all better informed. It is particularly helpful to have a proper exposition at Second Reading of what this Bill does, and does not, seek to achieve since it did not have a Second Reading in another place, only a Committee stage, which it is not altogether easy to follow.
I am not a charity lawyer: they are few and far between and tend to be very clever people. The only case which I had concerning a charitable trust required me to carry so many books to court that I resolved never to touch that area of the law again.
The understanding of the House is that the Bill is merely enabling and will allow for a limited but useful rationalisation of the treatment of certain charities; namely, only those which have common trustees. It is a Bill which appears to have the support of the NVCO and, as the noble Baroness explained, it is intended to reduce the administrative burden on the Charity Commission.
Faced with such an innocuous and simple Bill, one tries hard to resist any suspicions of hidden motives and to dismiss any fears of potential abuse. I believe that that is quite easily done in this case, but it is not altogether possible to escape completely some anxiety which comes perhaps merely from ignorance as to how the powers in this Bill will be used in practice. There is no guidance on the face of the Bill, but I gather that its main use will be to allow for the consolidation of accounts without, it is hoped, diminishing the accountability of trustees or diminishing proper scrutiny of the operation of charities.
I found reassurance from the clear statement made by the Minister in another place that a unifying direction under this Bill would still require two separate funds to be held for their separate purposes as is required by

735
ordinary trust law. It is also reassuring to appreciate that any direction made under this Bill would be variable or revocable under Section 90 of the 1993 Act. I also assume that any direction made under this Bill will lapse as soon as the charities concerned cease to have common trustees.
Until I heard the noble Baroness explaining how it is expected that this matter will work in practice, I had understood that the initiative for a direction under it would come from the Charity Commissioners. I was going to express the hope that they would establish a procedure for giving advance notice of any proposed direction. However, it seems more likely that in practice the trustees themselves will initiate a request for a direction. That leaves one wondering what criteria they will have for assessing whether or not to exercise the discretion they will be given under the Bill, if it is enacted. There is no guidance on the face of the Bill and I have not read any so far. I hasten to say that those remarks are not in any way meant to be criticisms of the Bill. From these Benches, we wish the Bill well on its way to the statute book.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Rawlings on the clarity with which she outlined the Bill. One is, indeed, far better informed.
My reason for intervening briefly is that, like many Members of your Lordships' House, I am a trustee of a charity. I am a trustee of a fishermen's mission. I know from experience that quite a few very old charities have gone into abeyance because there are no longer any beneficiaries who would be entitled to benefit from the charity. The funds therefore stand static. It is difficult and costly to merge one charity with another.
I wonder whether the Bill is a clever way of enabling the trustees of a very vibrant charity, such as that which I am happy to represent, to become (with the permission of the Charity Commissioners) the trustees of a charity in abeyance. The charities could therefore merge. That would be a tremendous development for charities because in practice some charities with an ancient history no longer operate.
7.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, clearly the Bill's objectives are admirable. I am strongly influenced not only by the excellent introductory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, but also by the fact that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations is very much in favour of the Bill. The desirability of avoiding multiple small applications and their control by the Charity Commission is clear and is an admirable concern. I have had experience of merging one charity with another. Despite the speed with which we wished to proceed and the expertise available to us, it took a couple of years from beginning to end before we achieved it—and that was with the complete agreement of everybody concerned. If that process can be made easier by the Bill, so much the better.
736
A few questions occurred to me only during the debate because I have been somewhat occupied on other matters until now. Clause 1, the substantive clause, provides that the commissioners may direct that two or more charities shall be treated as a single charity. However, it is not clear whether they will be encouraged to do so on the application of those charities or whether they may do so off their own hat. Who initiates the process of a direction in such a case?
We are told that this is fundamentally a Bill about charitable funds managed within the National Health Service. It allows charitable funds managed by a National Health Service trust, health authority board or board of special trustees within the NHS to be registered collectively. The history of the health service under this Government has been one of constant reorganisation, with the creation and abolition of regional, district and area health authorities, and the creation of trusts. Whatever one may say about the National Health Service, it certainly has not been administratively stable. Indeed, some of the things that have happened within the NHS will not, I hope and believe, survive a change of government after the next general election.
What is the position when the composition, authority, area or responsibility of an NHS trust, board of special trustees or health authority changes at any time, whether under the present Government or any other government? In other words, is this an irreversible process of amalgamation or is it reversible at any time and, if so, on whose initiative and by whose authority? Those are not exactly small points but they are the points that occur to me after a rather cursory examination of what is a simple and no doubt desirable Bill.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I wish to compliment my noble friend Lady Rawlings on bringing this Bill before the House and on speaking so persuasively in its support.
The Government support this measure. We see it as an entirely helpful improvement to the powers of the Charity Commission. Many charities will have no need of the new power proposed in the Bill; but many should benefit from its use. I do not believe that any interests will be damaged by the Bill. While making things easier for charities, use of the power should not damage the most important interests of proper accountability of charities. Indeed, in that a group of charities treated as a single charity under this power will amount in total to a larger whole, they may be subject to more effective scrutiny once the new charity accounting framework in Part VI of the Charities Act 1993 is in force.
Your Lordships may appreciate a brief report on progress in implementing that measure. It is now intended that Part VI will come into force on 1st March next year, and my noble friend Lady Blatch will very shortly be laying regulations as to the form of accounts and reports that will be required from charity trustees, auditors and independent examiners. This follows very careful preparation, including detailed workshop discussions with many practitioners and a large-scale consultation in which over 15,000 copies of the consultation document were sent out. In questionnaire

737
responses, 71 per cent. of respondents said they supported the proposed charity accounting framework as a whole and only 13 per cent. opposed it. We have also taken very careful account of the recommendations of the deregulation task force on charities, and we have accepted its proposals on increases to the financial thresholds within Part VI and to introduce a new "light touch" reporting regime for the smallest charities, which is those under £10,000 income or expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned the unifying direction. That is a matter for the Charity Commissioners' direction. It might not be suitable if, for example, charities need separate registration to facilitate fundraising or if the objectives of the charities are totally different.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, made the same point and I hope that I have answered his question. In addition, the noble Lord also asked whether
738
the directions would be irrevocable. Under Section 90(1) of the 1993 Act any direction given by commissioners may be varied or revoked by a further direction. It is my understanding that that can come either from the trustees or the commissioners. If I am incorrect, I shall let the noble Lord know.
The Bill now complements the new accounting regime and makes a most useful improvement to the powers of the Charity Commission which the Government are happy to support.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support that has been expressed for this measure. I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for their contributions. I hope that with such encouragement the Bill will achieve a successful passage. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past seven o'clock.

  Transfer of Land: Law Commission Recommendations
  Transfer of Land: Law Commission Recommendations
  Sustainable Development: Select Committee Report
  Sustainable Development: Select Committee Report
  Environmental Impact of Leisure Activities: Response to Report
  Environmental Impact of Leisure Activities: Response to Report