Sitting of 1 February 1996

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered again on Thursday 8 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Chocolate
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on the European Union's proposals in respect of chocolate. [11264]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I have received strong representations from British businesses about the need to remove arbitrary restrictions and to encourage free trade. I have recently written to the two Commissioners most closely involved, to emphasise those concerns. The Government are determined to do all that they can to ensure the recognition of the traditional descriptions of British chocolate throughout Europe.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the incredulity with which our nation of
    1106
    chocolate lovers greeted the proposal that its favourite confection should in future be called "vegelate"? Will he do his utmost to ensure that this latest lunacy from Brussels is stifled at birth, before the British people become confirmed in their belief that they are at the mercy of a load of Cadbury's fruit and nut cases?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right. Two important issues are involved—first, the need to preserve to British manufacturers of chocolate the right to sell in Europe under the designation chocolate, chocolate products that contain vegetable fat in addition to cocoa butter; secondly, to ensure that the milk chocolate that we manufacture and consume in Britain—which is milkier than that manufactured abroad—can be sold in Europe, but not under pejorative labelling.

    Veal Imports (Holland)
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the tonnage of veal imported into Britain from Holland since 1994. [11266]
    The Minister for Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): This information has not been collated centrally since 1992, but it is estimated that the United Kingdom imported approximately 1,700 tonnes of veal in 1994, with Holland as the main supplier.
    Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she consider consulting those who work in the veal industry in Britain—the producers and the caterers—in the hope that we can stimulate home consumption of veal and therefore stop the import and export of veal calves in veal crates?
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that much work has been carried out in that respect, certainly in the past year. The average consumption of veal is approximately 2 oz per person per year. However, most of it is consumed in the catering industry. I am sure that that is what most concerns the hon. Gentleman. I have been working closely with the Meat and Livestock Commission, and I was pleased to write the foreword to a booklet for the catering industry showing new cuts and recipes for the use of veal in catering.
    Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to deal with the fears of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) is to persuade local education authorities—particularly those run by the Labour and Liberal parties—not to ban beef and beef products in schools?
    Mrs. Browning: Indeed; I wrote to all LEAs and those involved in the school meals service just before Christmas. I am pleased that county councils such as Dorset, which took rapid and ill-informed decisions, have now changed their minds. If Members have concerns on the subject and would like me to provide any more information to LEAs and the school meals service, I should be happy to do so.
    Mr. Morley: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the importation of such a large amount of veal into Britain is

    1107
    not good for our balance of trade. It is also intolerable that imported veal is produced in veal crates, which are banned in Britain on the ground of cruelty. In that respect, does she agree that the redesignation of animals as sentient beings rather than as agricultural products would help to speed up the end of that system in Europe? I appreciate that she told me in a recent reply that the Government were considering that proposal, but is she aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rubbished the principle at a recent meeting? Does she agree that it is worthy of support and will she support it—yes or no?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman should take the answer that he received from me as it was written. My right hon. and learned Friend is examining the matter, and we shall give it serious consideration.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the deeply irresponsible policy that has been set out from the Opposition Front Bench may not be unconnected with the fact that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) receives no less than £15,000 per annum from an animal rights group?
    Mrs. Browning: The definition of sentient beings is somewhat different from the main thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). We are aware that, along with other Labour Members, he has attached his name to early-day motions which call for the banning of the export of live animals. That position is not shared by all members of the Opposition Front Bench. There is a division, I think.

    Veal Crate System
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in the last 12 months on the abolition of the current veal crate system as used in the rest of the EU. [11267]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There has been clear support for our initiative to bring about the end of the veal crate system throughout the European Union. As a result of sustained pressure from the United Kingdom Government, we now have proposals for revision of the EU legislation, well before the date specified in the directive.
    In welcoming those proposals, we have made it clear that we shall continue to press in negotiations for the early adoption and implementation of measures which fully meet the welfare needs of the calf.
    Mr. Martlew: Will the Minister accept that the representations made in Parliament and in demonstrations throughout the land in the past 12 months have had the effect of bringing forward the Commission's proposals? Will he accept also that phasing in over 12 years is far too long?
    The Minister's predecessor used to tell the House that, if he could, he would ban the export of veal calves, but he did not think that such action would be legal. The Minister is reported to have told the Devon branch of the National Farmers Union that, even if he had the power to introduce such a ban, he would not use it. Has there been a policy change?
    Mr. Hogg: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question. He has failed to give any credit to the Government's activities. Those activities within the European Union brought about the decision of the Council and the Commission to consider the matter earlier than would otherwise have been done. On many occasions, I have pressed the Commissioner, and the Council, to bring forward proposals. I did so most recently in December and January. We shall press for early implementation of regulations that will match the regulations that the Government introduced many years ago.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is it not a fact that the Labour Government reintroduced the export of live animals? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition Front-Bench team—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was a Labour Minister—to oppose what the Government are doing? Is it not another example of double standards?
    Mr. Hogg: It is worse than that. I have read a Hansard report of a debate on 16 January 1975, when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister. In a free vote, he supported the resumption of live animal exports.
    Dr. Strang: That matter has been explained in the past. The vote took place on the basis of the strict conditions that were recommended.
    Surely the Minister recognises that rearing calves in relative darkness, keeping them deliberately malnourished and in crates in which they cannot turn round, is cruel. Will he now answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)? Surely he recalls that the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said that he would not ban the export of calves in veal crates because he believed that by doing so he would put the United Kingdom in breach of European law. Is the Minister saying that, even if he could halt the trade without breaking European law, he would not do so?
    Mr. Hogg: In explaining his vote of 16 January 1975, the hon. Gentleman has given no answer whatever, because many of his Government colleagues in that Division voted the other way, as the Division list shows. The difference between what the hon. Gentleman says today and what he said when he had a free vote merely demonstrates the truth of the proposition: Labour says one thing and does another.

    Potato Brown Rot
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in controlling the problem of potato brown rot. [11268]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): Following last year's outbreaks in the Netherlands, the European Community adopted a series of controls, which the Government have supplemented with further measures to provide safeguards for our industry against spread of this disease.
    Mr. Alexander: Is it not the case that, although we must not overreact about the disease because it appeared

    1109
    in the Netherlands recently, nevertheless a recent consignment of potato seed from Holland cleared the Dutch authorities and was found, when it entered this country, to contain brown rot? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the controls in Holland? Do they comply fully with European Union requirements?
    Mr. Boswell: I thank my hon. Friend for those questions and comments. One consignment of Dutch seed potatoes into the United Kingdom was found to have evidence of brown rot—although the diagnosis has not yet been confirmed—and that raises the question of the validity of the Dutch tests. I can tell my hon. Friend that although the Dutch tests vary slightly from ours, they are very much in line with the requirements of the European Union. The only difference is that we impose as a further safeguard an additional set of tests, which very much reduces the risk of the disease reaching this country.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the Minister made it clear in his initial reply that he has powers to supplement the restrictions recommended by the European Community, why does not he place a temporary ban on the importation of seed potatoes from the Netherlands?
    Mr. Boswell: What was clear from our earlier exchanges is that we do indeed have powers to supplement, but they must be properly proportionate to the risk. We have considered this carefully and notified the European Commission of the action that we are taking. We have received wide support in the industry for the proportionate action that we are taking and are satisfied that it is appropriate to the risk as we perceive it today. We shall continue to monitor the position, and if there is a need for further action, we would, of course, be prepared to take it.

    Apples (Intervention System)
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about progress in the phasing out of the intervention system for apples. [11269]
    Mr. Boswell: Discussions are continuing on reform of the regime for fresh fruit and vegetables on the basis of the Commission's proposals. The Government welcome them as a useful first step towards our goal of an end to intervention for all fresh produce.
    Sir Roger Moate: I thank my hon. Friend for not being rushed into a bad compromise that would divert us from the ultimate goal of getting rid of the intervention system altogether. Does he agree that, in most years, the system results in almost 1 million tonnes of apples being grown just to be destroyed, at immense cost, largely to the British taxpayer as a major contributor, and that it undermines our ability to sell the best apples in the world—British Coxes and other fine apples? It is an unacceptable system, and we must phase it out before too long.
    Mr. Boswell: I have every sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. The intervention system is extremely wasteful. It is damaging to the interests of the United Kingdom: both to the taxpayer, who has to pay a large share of the burden for a small portion of the total
    1110
    intervention, amounting to only 1 per cent. of the total Community spend, and to the interests of our growers, because it replaces good fruit from this country with surpluses of unrealistic and uneconomic production on the back of large intervention, with the French taking more than one third of their apples into intervention in the last recorded year. It is an unsatisfactory system, and we oppose it. We are determined to make major changes, and not to make concessions by reaching an early and unsatisfactory conclusion.
    Mrs. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the draft regulations on the European Union fruit and vegetable regime underline the high price that the country is paying for his Government's lack of influence in Europe? Why are we threatened with such a bad deal for British growers, involving the continuance of waste and, in all probability, fraud? Why have Ministers let us down yet again in Europe?
    Mr. Boswell: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has decided to introduce a note of asperity to discussions that have generally featured a measure of consensus, both in the industry and between the parties in Committee here. We shall do our utmost, because, unlike the Labour party, we are not prepared to commit ourselves not to be isolated in Europe. If we think that we are right, we shall stick by our principles, and resist the proposals of the countries—many with socialist Administrations—that account for the greater part of the intervention, the greater part of the cost and nearly all the abuse.
    Sir Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that we make more cider in Hereford than is made anywhere else in the world? Cider manufacturers who are crying out for raw material in the form of apple juice find it immensely frustrating to see enormous quantities of apples being destroyed when they could be juiced to make apple juice and cider. Will my hon. Friend put continuing pressure on the system, as it is essential that we end that frustration?
    Mr. Boswell: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, and that of the cider industry. Although the industry has been generally buoyant in recent years, the problem with allowing it access to intervention stocks is that that might have a displacement effect on apples offered commercially for cider production. We think that, on the whole, ending or curtailing the intervention system is a better and more market-related approach.

    Foodstuffs (Chemicals)
    Ms Quin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has concerning the use of chemicals on foodstuffs. [11270]
    Mrs. Browning: Our controls are constantly reviewed in the light of scientific developments.
    Ms Quin: Have the Government any new proposals to inform consumers about the chemical and pesticide treatment that may have been applied to fresh fruit and vegetables—apples, potatoes and carrots, for example? Why is it that, although consumers are rightly entitled

    1111
    to detailed information about what is in processed and packaged foods, they are given almost no information about fresh fruit and vegetables?
    Mrs. Browning: I am pleased to say that today I announced the establishment of a pesticides forum—that was a commitment in the rural White Paper—which will bring together interested parties, and which will naturally include consumers. I hope that the forum will help to put more information into the public domain. I shall send the hon. Lady a copy of the press release that went out today.
    Mr. Lord: The EC directive on nitrates in drinking water is causing great concern to my farming constituents in Suffolk. Does my hon. Friend realise just how little evidence there is of the way in which nitrate levels in drinking water affect human health? Is she aware of the great problems that nitrate-vulnerable zones will cause Suffolk farmers? May I urge her and her colleagues, as a matter of the greatest urgency, first to look at the way in which the system will be introduced—because it is flawed and will cause great problems—and secondly to consider whether we need this mad directive in the first place? That is even more important. In fact, nitrates are not doing a great deal of harm.
    Mrs. Browning: The Ministry receives scientific advice from independent expert committees. I am sure that, if my hon. Friend has further scientific evidence that he wishes us to consider, we shall be pleased to receive it.
    Mr. Skinner: Have the Government noted the campaign to stop the use of the pesticide Lindane? A number of reports suggest a direct link with breast cancer. In Lincolnshire, the incidence rate is one in eight, whereas I believe that it is about one in 12 in the rest of the country. There is evidence that where Lindane has been banned—in Israel, for example—the rate has fallen dramatically. If that is the case, will the Ministry re-examine the position with a view to banning the pesticide?
    Mrs. Browning: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we always consider scientific advice and the sort of information that he has brought before the House. I reiterate that our decisions are based on scientific advice, and therefore I assure him that I shall look at the matter again to see whether there is anything new that we have yet to consider.

    British Food Exports
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase exports of British food. [11271]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): The value of UK food and drink exports is currently almost £10 billion a year. We continue, through Food From Britain, to provide active support for British food and drink exporters.
    Mr. Elletson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the help provided by Food From Britain to more than 1,000 British companies, including several from Blackpool and Fylde?
    1112
    Marketing grants and other forms of assistance have helped several local firms, including Premier Biscuits, Fair Game and the Packaged Ice Company, to increase exports and break into new export markets. Does he agree that Food From Britain is doing an excellent job and will he join me in congratulating it?
    Mr. Baldry: Food From Britain is doing an excellent job, and all over the country large numbers of successful businesses are exporting foodstuffs from the UK. Indeed, food exports have increased by 10 per cent. since last year. We are exporting pizzas to Italy, mineral water to France, and I strongly suspect that, somewhere in the UK, someone is exporting ice cream to the Eskimos.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: One of the better foods that we export is fish; the delicious and nutritious brainfood that we should all eat more of, especially those sitting on the Government Front Bench. The British fishing industry would like to export more fish, but at the moment it is importing too much of our fish, caught in our waters by foreign vessels. Therefore, is it not disgraceful that the Minister has not made a statement on how well he fulfilled the mandate imposed on him by the House of Commons by the Government defeat in November to get a better deal for British fishermen at the Fisheries Council?
    Mr. Baldry: I would have been delighted to have had the opportunity to proclaim my success at the Fisheries Council. We struck a very good deal, balancing the interests of the UK fishing industry with the needs of best science. We must ensure that our industry has the maximum catch this year, at the same time as ensuring that there are sustainable levels of fish in the sea for years to come.
    Mr. Tyler: I acknowledge that the livestock sector is not doing anything like as well as other sectors, as the farm incomes survey showed last night. What plans does the Minister have to promote the export of meat and dairy products, especially to other countries of the European Union? Did he note, for example, that at the recent international green week festival in Berlin, the Irish were there in force, led by their Minister, yet there was no representative from the Government, the Meat and Livestock Commission or Food From Britain?
    Mr. Baldry: UK Ministers and Food From Britain are at practically every significant food fair in Europe. Bearing in mind how few Liberal Democrats are present, it is very difficult to take anything they say seriously. Indeed, in their own document on agriculture, they freely acknowledge that
    "Lib-Dems say everything to everybody to satisfy the pro-animal and pro-farming lobbies."
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet his counterparts in the EU to discuss the export of British beef; and if he will make a statement. [11272]
    Mr. Baldry: Beef exports have been discussed at three of the last four meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers. British beef exports are a real success story. Last year British beef exports were worth an impressive £526 million.
    Mr. Fabricant: Following my hon. Friend's robust efforts to protect British fishermen in the Irish box,

    1113
    Staffordshire farmers now want him to push still further the export of British beef and not allow bovine spongiform encephalopathy to be used as an excuse by our French and German cousins for not importing it. Will he convey to our French and German brethren that British beef is, of course, far nicer than knackered horse?
    Mr. Baldry: I am glad to say that the Meat and Livestock Commission estimates that UK beef exports in December were significantly higher than they were at the same time in the previous year. Clearly, although unfair and alarmist reports about BSE do not help, our continuing impressive beef export performance is testimony to the quality and competitiveness of British beef. We have made it clear to the Commission that we expect it to ensure that Germany complies with European Community law.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that animal welfare groups do excellent work in monitoring meat exports? Will he therefore repudiate the remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins), who has now fled the Chamber, accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) of pocketing £15,000 a year from an animal welfare group? Will the Minister acknowledge that that money goes not to my hon. Friend but to support research carried out in his private office, and that the same organisation funds Conservative Members in precisely the same way?
    Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the Register of Members' Interests speaks for itself.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister assure me that, when he makes representations about beef exports to the European Union, he will keep in mind the valuable contribution made by Northern Ireland to those exports? Will he be fully briefed by Baroness Denton, the Northern Ireland Office Minister responsible for agriculture, about the difficulties that Northern Ireland exporters now face in exporting beef to the European Union?
    Mr. Baldry: We all have good cause to be proud of the quality of agriculture in Northern Ireland; it makes a significant contribution to United Kingdom agriculture overall. I have no doubt that if Baroness Denton feels that there are concerns, she will raise them with us, and we shall act upon them.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister tell us why neither he nor any other Minister attended the Berlin green fair, where the promotion of food exports was discussed? If the Irish Minister was there, why was the British Minister not there?
    Mr. Baldry: As I have already explained, United Kingdom Ministers attend many trade exhibitions to promote UK food. The fact that UK food exports have increased by 10 per cent. in one year is a testimony to that.

    Milk Quotas and the Potato Marketing Board
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss milk quotas and the Potato Marketing Board. [11273]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I regularly meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss issues of importance to them.
    Mr. Winterton: A brief response from my right hon. and learned Friend. Are not the United Kingdom's climate and agricultural land ideal for the production of milk and the growing of potatoes? Is it not vital that we do not rely upon set-aside as a long-term income for farmers, and that we fully and properly utilise our agricultural land? At the next meeting of Agriculture Ministers, will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore press for additional quota for milk producers? Will he ensure that the proposed development council for the potato industry is properly representative of the growers?
    Mr. Hogg: Our long-term objective is certainly to do away with price support systems and restraints on production. In the shorter term, we are arguing within the European Union for much greater transferability of milk quota between member states, and we shall continue to do so.
    Dr. Strang: On the subject of the European milk regime, I thank the Minister for placing in the Library the request that the British Government made two years ago for permission to continue to receive European funds for milk in our secondary schools and for school meals. Did he agree with that approach? Did he agree with what the then Minister of State, now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said about those payments being important for the nutrition of our schoolchildren? If so, why is he stopping those funds now?
    Mr. Hogg: That question shows that the Labour party is not serious about reducing public expenditure and, therefore, is not serious in its pretensions to reduce taxation. We must see whether public money is being spent properly. We came to the conclusion that it was not in that case. That was the correct conclusion. The hon. Gentleman's question shows, yet again, that Labour says one thing and does another.

    British Food Exports
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent export performance of the United Kingdom food industry. [11274]
    Mrs. Browning: The export performance of our food and drink industry remains buoyant. The latest figures available, for the 12 months ending October 1995, show a rise of some 10 per cent. compared with 1994.
    Mr. Riddick: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent survey showed that British chocolate is more popular on the continent than is continental chocolate? Is she aware that Glenys Kinnock MEP said at a recent inter-group meeting that vegetable fat should not be incorporated in chocolate? Is not vegetable fat the very thing that makes British chocolate unique? Is it not the case that, whether it be chocolate manufacturers or airlines, the Kinnocks are not exactly doing British companies any favours?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The British chocolate and confectionery industry is one

    1115
    of which we can all be rightly proud in terms of home sales and exports. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has outlined to the House the representations that he is making in defence of British chocolate. I had a meeting with Commissioner Kinnock a few months ago at which he assured me that he would bat for Britain. From the report that my hon. Friend has mentioned, it sounds as though there is trouble with her indoors.
    Mr. Foulkes: Recognising the importance of potatoes to our food export industry, will the Minister gather information about Girvan Early Growers, an effective and efficient co-operative for growing and marketing potatoes, which had a turnover of £1 million last year? The co-operative was set up by six farmers in and around Girvan in my constituency. Will she use that information to encourage similar co-operatives to boost potato production in the whole of the UK?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to his constituency just as British producers are working in co-operatives to ensure that they are growing what the customer wants. I commend them, and I shall encourage others to follow that example.

    Retail Prices Index (Food Goods)
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of food goods used to compile the retail prices index are sourced from the United Kingdom. [11276]
    Mr. Boswell: The retail prices index is based on a range of food and other goods and services intended to be representative of current consumer purchases. It does not take account of their sourcing, but my colleagues and I are anxious to encourage British food.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree with Janice that all food goods produced in the United Kingdom should be marked with a United Kingdom flag, and that all imported goods should be marked F for foreign? Does he also agree that that lot over there should wear badges showing their sell-by date so that we can all know the difference between new Labour and old Labour? We would then really know what the word hypocrisy means.
    Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestion—his and Janice's. There are certain technical problems in relation to both parts of the suggestion. In relation to food products, some are processed and might lose their original identity, while some might be blended together. In relation to Opposition Members, the biggest technical problem is that we might not know from one day to another whether they were old Labour, new Labour or somewhere in between. I have come to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition's recent support for the right to roam has come about because Opposition Members want to distance themselves from each other as far as they possibly can.
    Mr. Tipping: Does not the common agricultural policy add about £20 to a typical family's weekly bill? Is not a reform of the CAP essential, and needed urgently, if we are to help ordinary families with their cost of living?
    Mr. Boswell: While the common agricultural policy is expensive—my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister
    1116
    has taken the lead in Europe in advocating change—I would not necessarily accept the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted. The cause of CAP reform can be taken forward only by a party that is prepared to speak out for it; it cannot be taken forward by a party that is prepared to cave in to other interests to ensure that it is never isolated in Europe, even when it is wrong—as it usually is.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be desirable for British beef and meat products to form a high proportion of the items in the retail prices index? Would not it be more difficult to produce and export British beef if local education authorities emulated the incompetent Liberal Democrat administration at Dorset county hall? Is he aware that it introduced a ban on beef products in schools, based on no evidence but on rumour and media hype? Two weeks ago, it cancelled the ban—thank goodness—but the damage to the confidence of young people in British beef products is considerable and that to the farming community incalculable. Is that not another example of the Liberal Democrats being prepared to say anything to anybody?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It seems from the report that he has given to the House that Dorset county council, under its present administration, is not good at running its schools and would be rotten at running a British export drive.

    Canned Foods Industry
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on developments in the canned foods industry. [11277]
    Mrs. Browning: None recently, although my Department keeps in regular touch with the industry on issues of concern.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a public interest case for the fullest possible disclosure of information on industrial accidents and food hygiene in the food canning industry in the United Kingdom? Will the Minister call on Campbell Soups of Camden, New Jersey to publish that information in the form of reports and surveys on its United Kingdom operations and, in particular, on its factories in England?
    Mrs. Browning: There are already in place mechanisms through the Health and Safety Executive and environmental health officers for monitoring food processing plants. If the hon. Gentleman has specific factories and incidents in mind, and has information that he can substantiate, we would be grateful to receive it.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many canning jobs in King's Lynn in my constituency, including those of nearly 500 people who work for Campbell's? They are sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is trying to do to save the factory in his constituency, but are against the boycott of Campbell's products because it could jeopardise their jobs.
    Mrs. Browning: The House recognises the concern of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)

    1117
    about the loss of jobs at Campbell's in Maryport. He knows that I have supported the action that he has taken through legitimate means to try to represent his constituents. The Government cannot support a boycott of one product against another because, as he will be aware, jobs all around the country are involved, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and in Stratford-on-Avon, which have benefited from the losses that the constituents of the hon. Member for Workington have sustained.

    Pigs (Welfare Regulations)
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the annual cost to British pig farmers of the welfare regulations on sow stalls and tethers; and what action he is taking to assist them in meeting these costs. [11278]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is impossible to estimate the cost of the many alternatives to sow stalls and tethers. Less than 25 per cent. of sows are housed in them and many would have needed replacing irrespective of the ban.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Does the Minister agree—I am sure he does—that it is not acceptable that our industry should be expected to convert itself to welfare-friendly systems without financial assistance, help with promotion or a level playing field with other European Community producers?
    Mr. Hogg: It is extremely important that we try to create throughout Europe a common set of rules; the British Government are seeking to do just that. In the first part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is saying that, whenever operating procedures are changed, assistance has to be provided by the Government. That would be an extremely dangerous precedent. I will wager that the hon. Gentleman has not discussed that proposal with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
    Sir Donald Thompson: None the less, have not pig farmers with stalls and tethers—as did the veal farmers—led the way in the welfare of British animals, with the result that our welfare system is paramount in Europe? Are not they entitled, therefore, to some compliance costs?
    Mr. Hogg: The Government have put in place an exceptionally beneficial tax regime for agriculture—most notably, though not exclusively, the right to average incomes and profits over two years. That is a most important contribution to what my hon. Friend has in mind.

    Indian Cuisine
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the rate of growth and consumption of Indian cuisine since 1976. [11279]
    Mrs. Browning: Indian cuisine is very popular. I know my hon. Friend has played no small part in promoting
    1118
    both Indian cuisine and Anglo-Indian relations. Although I have no separate comparison for Indian restaurants, statistics available from the 1995 Curry Club user survey suggest that, since 1991, the number of curry restaurants has increased by around 12 per cent., accounting for 6 per cent. of the entire United Kingdom restaurant and take-away trade.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of Indian restaurants give tremendous pleasure to millions of British people all over the United Kingdom with their highly spiced foods, which buttress the terrific relations between Britain and India? Those relations were further promoted by the Prime Minister's visit to India for Republic day two years ago as guest of honour of the Republic of India.
    Mrs. Browning: I am sure that the House recognises how absolutely delicious Indian cuisine is. I know that many hon. Members spend their money in Indian restaurants, which accounts for the increase in trade in that sector. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11294]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming another successful year for the Manor House private hospital, which is funded by the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions to provide private health care for their members? In view of the Labour party's long-term opposition to private health care, does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a classic case of the Labour movement saying one thing and doing another?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a fascinating point. I think that he mentioned the Transport and General Workers Union. It sponsors many prominent hon. Members, so they will certainly be familiar with its activities. I was not aware of the case my hon. Friend raises, but if it is true it certainly calls into question the deep and apparently sincere hostility of so many Opposition Members to the private sector of medicine that they have set out for so many years. It is surprising that they seem keen to use the private sector, but are keen to condemn it.
    Mr. Blair: Perhaps I could ask the Prime Minister about the national health service. Can he confirm the figures of the Consultants Association and the Audit Commission that show that, under his Prime Ministership, within the past five years, the costs of administration have

    1119
    doubled? Given today's news about the pay awards to top administrators, does not the Prime Minister think that the Secretary of State for Health should say clearly to the trust boards that, in future, the average pay rises for managers should be very similar to those for doctors and nurses?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot confirm the detailed figures that have been released—I have no reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong about them, but I cannot immediately confirm them. The right hon. Gentleman should take great care before he returns to his old line of attacking management in the national health service and its costs.
    Mr. Skinner: Why?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asks why. I shall give him several reasons. First, because that is precisely what the Socialist Health Association told him not to do. Secondly,
    "I don't think it's really in question any more that the NHS has been under-managed in the past".
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Undermanaged?] I am sorry that Opposition Members scoff—those are not my words but those of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when she was Labour's health spokesman.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Of course one would wish to ensure a fair division of pay among all people in the health service. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the present Government, under my Prime Ministership, gave the nurses a pay review body, whose recommendations we have always honoured.
    Mr. Blair: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the Secretary of State to do as I ask? [Interruption.] "No," say Conservative Members, but I was quoting the words of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Instead of the Prime Minister saying things that are in his folder and my putting things to him, will he answer the basic question? Why have administrative costs increased by more than £1 billion a year in the past five years—when the number of nurses is falling, when patients are on trolleys and when there is a shortage of acute beds? The question that the Prime Minister must answer is, why is the national health service safe in the hands of a Government who place administrators before nurses?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is mistaken on almost every point that he puts to me, but let me deal directly with his point about management costs. It is fair to raise the important issue of management costs. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about management costs, and I am sure that he is sincere in what he says about them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—can he explain why he does not support the 8 per cent. cut of administrative costs next year that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health proposes? The right hon. Gentleman does not support that. Can he explain why he voted against the abolition of regional health authorities, which saved a whole tier of management?
    We have provided the resources for more medical staff and for the treatment of 1.5 million extra patients. A few years ago, it was impossible to check properly how
    1120
    resources were used because there was no proper management in the national health service. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South said, that had to be put right. We have put it right. Now that we have put it right, the right hon. Gentleman criticises it.
    Mr. Blair: Let us debate at least on the basis of facts. Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that the extra costs are more than £1 billion a year? If they are, instead of spending that money on bureaucrats, administrators, company cars and pen-pushers, why does he not spend it on nurses, doctors, patients and beds?
    The Prime Minister: The money is being spent on patients. The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be able to grasp that point. To spend it on patients, it is necessary to do what we have been doing—put resources into medical care and manage them so that money is available for medical care. Until the right hon. Gentleman understands that, he will continue to ask me questions that are, literally, senseless. I suggest that he examines the matter again with the right hon. Member for Derby, South, who understood those matters when she was Labour's health spokesman, but who obviously disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman—which may well be why she has almost disappeared from public view in recent months.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11295]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jenkin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that boot camps are for the punishment of young offenders, humanely but firmly? May I urge my right hon. Friend to make use of the military corrective training centre at Colchester garrison and ignore the blandishments and objections of Liberal Democrat and Labour Colchester councillors, who once again demonstrate that the Opposition parties are the villain's friend?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I shall certainly examine his suggestion. We hear much from the Opposition parties about their approach to crime, and in some cases about how tough it is. We do not see it at a national level and, if my hon. Friend is correct—I have no reason to doubt that he is—those parties clearly take the same inadequate approach at local level as we have seen them take at national level.
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11296]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hain: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on Tuesday that the British economy is now the best in the western world, when in fact seven European countries are growing faster? Does he also recall telling the House that crime in Britain is falling for the first time

    1121
    for 40 years, when in fact crime fell in 1977 and 1978, under Labour? Was he deliberately misleading the House or just reverting to his old, routine incompetence?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite right on crime figures, but I understated what I might have said to the House. The fall is not the first for 40 years—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but the largest fall in crime since records began 100 years ago. It was achieved against the opposition of the hon. Gentleman and many other Opposition Members to almost every measure that we have brought forward in recent years.
    The hon. Gentleman referred also to the economy. I said that we have the best performing economy in western Europe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should look at exactly what I said. The facts are that we have the lowest level of inflation for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment of any major European country and the lowest basic rate of tax for 50 years. We are number one in Europe for foreign investment and we export more per person than Japan or the United States. Which European country can match that record?
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11297]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatised companies are a very attractive proposition to investors? Is he aware of a pamphlet issued recently by a Labour Member of the European Parliament that shows that nearly £1 billion has been invested in privatised companies by Labour local authorities, including Southwark, Lewisham and Islington? Is not that yet another example of Labour hypocrisy? They opposed privatisation, but now they profit from it.
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the brochure and I commend it to hon. Members. It was written by a Labour Member of the European Parliament and has a foreword by the leader of the Labour Members of the European Parliament. Its case is set out as my hon. Friend claims. I am delighted to welcome Islington, Lewisham and Southwark to the stockbroker belt, but it strikes me as odd that the Opposition opposed privatisation, they fight privatisation in the House, they go on television to attack privatisation, they attack the management of privatisation, and yet they buy shares in privatised companies and enjoy profits from them. As usual, they are saying one thing and doing another.
    Mr. Hardy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11298]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hardy: How does the Prime Minister think the British people will recall his widely publicised promises in the 1992 general election campaign to cut taxes year after year, given that he then increased them by more than at any other time in British history? Is not that the most glaring example of saying one thing and doing another?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that taxes are now going back on a downward trend. He might like to hear some examples of saying one thing and doing another. The Opposition are claiming that they will not put taxes up; but what did the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say some time ago?
    "Well, I would say is this: that if the Chancellor, to raise money to do things, did raise the tax level on the top rate from 40 to 50 per cent., we would not oppose it".
    That is not what the Leader of the Opposition says. Of course, the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is temporarily absent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is—he has decided to heckle someone else this afternoon. He said, however, that Labour
    "should not follow the Government down the road of reducing the basic rate of tax".
    How does that square with the promises made by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about taxation?
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11299]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the assisted places scheme provides an excellent opportunity for thousands of children? Is it not another example of hypocrisy and double standards that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition health spokesman have benefited from the excellent facilities in private education, yet wish to do away with the scheme?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. The assisted places scheme is another policy that increases choice and opportunity, particularly for people on modest incomes. That is why we are committed to doubling the scheme.
    The Labour party is opposed to the scheme—or at least that is what I thought until the Labour leader gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) an assisted place in the shadow Cabinet.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to respond to the motion on Members' and Ministers' pay that stands in my name and in those of 300 other right hon. and hon. Members? Meanwhile is there any comment he can offer the House on the subject today?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there needs to be a new mechanism for determining Members' pay for the future, as the existing link to civil service pay grades disappears following civil service restructuring. That has been the case for some time. We have been considering how to take the matter forward. Of course we shall take account of the views expressed by the House in the early-day motion standing in the right hon. Gentleman's name. We have not concluded our consideration and consultations. As soon as we have, we shall bring our conclusions to the House.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Debate on policing of London, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Until 7 o'clock, a debate on the future of GP fundholding, on a Government motion; followed by a motion relating to the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—A slight variation from the usual Wednesday morning debate, in that this is the first occasion on which the first two debates will take place on Select Committee reports recommended for debate by the Liaison Committee. Until 12.30 pm, therefore, there will be a debate on the Agriculture Select Committee report on horticulture, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee report on employment creation in Northern Ireland; followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (4th allotted day): Until about 7 o'clock, a debate on rail privatisation, followed by a debate entitled "The renewed threat of Post Office privatisation". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Remaining stages of the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th allotted day)—the first of three allocated to the minority parties under Standing Orders. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced in due course.
During the rest of the week, I hope to provide a further day for the official Opposition, and it may be necessary to take Government business on the Thursday. On Friday 16 February, the business will be private Members' Bills.
[Thursday 8 February: (Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports); relevant reports: Local Government Finance Report (Wales) (1996–97); Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1996–97.]
Mrs. Taylor: I shall begin with the issue that was raised at the end of Prime Minister's questions. I stress to the Leader of the House that there is obvious and widespread support across all parties for establishing a new mechanism for dealing with the pay of Members of Parliament and of Ministers. As only the Prime Minister can refer the matter to Lord Nolan by widening that committee's terms of reference, I stress to the Leader of the House the need for an early indication of the Prime Minister's intentions in that regard, so that hon. Members are not placed in the invidious position of having to make decisions about their own pay and that of Ministers.
1124
This week, hon. Members on both sides of the House have made clear their opposition to the suggestion by some members of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals that it should levy a pre-entry top-up fee of £300 per student. CVCP members believe that that is necessary because Government funding of higher education has not matched the increase in student numbers. I understand that the CVCP will meet tomorrow to make a final decision about the matter.
Should the proposal receive formal support, does the Leader of the House agree that a Minister should make a statement to the House on Monday to explain how the Government will respond to that very difficult situation? Would it not be wise to have a full debate on the funding crisis facing both higher and further education, as more and more further education colleges are also in significant financial difficulty?
Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government intend to make a statement to the House the moment that the report of the Scott inquiry is published? It is important that the House should be the first to hear the Government's response to that report. I hope that any statement will coincide with the report's publication, and that that will be followed as soon as practicable by a proper, full-scale debate in the House.
Finally, the Leader of the House will not be surprised if I ask yet again about his proposals for debating important European issues. Last week, he said that he could not say whether or when there might be a debate on important issues such as convergence, social protection and economic and monetary union—which the all-party Scrutiny Committee unanimously recommended should be debated on the Floor of the House. Last week, the Leader of the House said that he had not seen the Committee's report. It is now available, and I hope that he will acknowledge that we should have an early debate on the matter.
While we are on that subject, I again press the Leader of the House to tell us when he expects to see the publication of the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference, and when the House will have an opportunity to debate it. If the Leader of the House does not respond to that issue soon, we can conclude only that the Government are frightened of debating any European issue.
Mr. Newton: I will take the questions in the order in which they were asked. First, in relation to Members of Parliament's and Ministers' pay, the hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that I would have said exactly what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said had he not been asked. I will add only this. The hon. Lady's statements yesterday of Opposition support for a reference to an independent body were extremely helpful. As I have told her, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we hope to be able to announce our conclusions on that matter shortly, following our own further consideration and consultation through the usual channels.
Secondly, in relation to top-up fees and the meeting tomorrow, there is no sense in my speculating about what might or might not be appropriate in the wake of a meeting that has not taken place. However, I shall of course draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I emphasise that while, of course, the universities face a challenging public spending settlement

1125
this year, they have been given new flexibility to finance capital investment through the private finance initiative, and we certainly see no need for universities to introduce top-up fees.
As for Scott, we will announce our plans for handling the report in due course. However, the House may like to know that my right hon. Friend the President the Board of Trade is answering a question this afternoon announcing the expected publication date.
In relation to the hon. Lady's question about European legislation, she is right to say that the report has been published—I have it with me. However, it was embargoed for any use before 2 pm today, so she will understand that we have not had an extensive opportunity to consider it. We will, of course, consider it, and respond in the appropriate way at the appropriate time.
Finally, the White Paper on the IGC is in preparation, and will be published in good time, before the start of the IGC at the end of March.
Mr. John Redwood: Can I push the Leader of the House a little further on the important question of the IGC? Will there be opportunities for hon. Members to give their input before the drafting of the White Paper, as I am sure that there are still some issues to be resolved, and an opportunity for a good debate on or shortly after its publication? I am sure that many hon. Members would like to join in on those weighty issues.
Mr. Newton: I will of course bear—[Interruption.]—in mind my right hon. Friend's points. I should also tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that neither of them has shown any inability to provide their input to discussions on those matters in a variety of ways.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As a result of the Leader of the House's announcement that the annual debate on the policing of London will take place on Monday, which I welcome, will he go further and tell us whether it is possible to establish—given the controversy that occurs when it is not done—annual dates for debates on such matters as "The Health of the Nation", which is the Government's document setting annual targets, and the environmental state of the nation, which is a departmental and Government programme?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why next week's business does not include a debate on the Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which is the first local government order to be debated not in the House but in Standing Committee, quite against the interests of many hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, as he will well know, the understanding about the changes made by the House after Jopling was that statutory instruments would normally be taken in Standing Committee unless requests were made through the usual channels for them to be taken on the Floor of the House. We would always consider such requests. In this case, it seemed sensible to take the order, which Opposition Members have been pressing for, in Standing Committee.
1126
In relation to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there is a Jopling link. There is of course an understanding that there will be an annual debate on the policing of London. However, the House cannot continue to press me to move perhaps even further in a Jopling direction, certainly to sustain the moves that we have made, and also to demand an increasing number of annual set-piece debates on this, that and the other.
Sir Teddy Taylor: After the very worrying and alarming decision taken by Commissioner Kinnock to allow massive funding from public funds for public airlines in Spain—which seems to show that the idea of a level playing field within Europe is simply a sick Brussels joke—will the Government be willing to have a debate on the changes that we can make in the wholly unrestricted power of Commissioners to make decisions which can cause real damage to British industry and destroy British jobs or jobs in other nations?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might take my hon. Friend's remarks as some sort of input along the lines touched on earlier. The decision seems to us, at best, a weak decision which threatens to undermine all our efforts to establish fair competition in the Community aviation market. We shall be studying the decision closely, and we have not ruled out a legal challenge.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Leader of the House will remember that I raised with him the question of the replacement of MOD police with private security men. He will also be aware that the matter is now becoming urgent, because the question has arisen of arming private security men and training them, and there are real worries about replacing MOD policemen in highly sensitive and important factories around the United Kingdom. It is vital that the House of Commons debates these matters before decisions are implemented, and not afterwards.
Mr. Newton: I always bear the hon. Lady's requests in mind, but she will acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces wrote to her in December, sending a copy of the consultation document, and again on 17 January. She will be aware that copies of the consultation documents and other studies on defence policing have been placed in the Library of the House.
Sir David Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 35 Ministers are paid less than senior Officers of the House? In view of that, will he lend some urgency to decisions on the matter?
Mr. Newton: I thought that I had said, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did, that we hoped to give to the House an indication of the Government's proposals for carrying these matters forward within the relatively near future.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Leader of the House any alternative to offer to the rejection by the Liaison Committee of the unanimous request by the Transport Select Committee for a debate on the important issue of ferry safety? Since we reported, there have been

1127
two incidents. One involved a ferry that went down off Indonesia in two minutes; yet the Government refused to investigate it, because the vessel was not in British waters.
Then there was the rigged evacuation conducted at Dover, which proved that, although it was supposed to be possible to evacuate 2,000 people from a vessel in storm conditions at sea, it was not possible to evacuate more than 315 from a vessel tied up in harbour in broad daylight. As the risk of a disaster is as real now as when the Committee reported in July, can we have an urgent debate?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee will consider the hon. Gentleman's further representations. Although the Committee has suggested two subjects for debate next Wednesday, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not the end of the opportunities for such debates. No doubt his request can be borne in mind.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was with some surprise and not a little disappointment that we learned that the Government had renewed for a further five years the right of individual reference to the European Court of Human Rights, without giving the House or even the Home Affairs Select Committee the opportunity to consider whether that was what we wanted?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there is immense dissatisfaction with the fact that, time and again, the decisions of this House and this people are referred to a court of foreigners who do not have our traditions and do not have an understanding of our culture, and that those decisions are often reversed? Will he give an undertaking that, if such matters come up for consideration again at any time in the future, they will be referred to the House, so that it can be given an opportunity to consider them fully?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are principally concerned with those matters.
Mr. David Winnick: Can the Leader of the House give a firm assurance today that the Government machine will stop rubbishing the Scott report before publication? Is he aware that the comments of the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe, were inappropriate? Why do we not wait for the Scott report to appear before the smear campaigns begin?
Mr. Newton: That question from that quarter almost beggars belief, given the amount of smearing by the Opposition.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the Leader of the House consider, not immediately but in due course, at least a half-day debate on the People's Republic of China, covering Hong Kong, what is to happen next year and bilateral relations throughout?
Mr. Newton: Consider it added, without commitment, to my little list.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister, when he makes his
1128
statement about the proposed pay review for Members of Parliament, to consider giving British pensioners the same percentage increase as Members of Parliament?
Mr. Newton: The pressure, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is for an independent body to look at those matters. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made that request, and many Members have signed up to it. Were such a reference to be made, it would be for that body to consider what to take into account.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in asking for an urgent early debate on the decision by Commissioner Neil Kinnock to permit the payment of a subsidy of £400 million to Iberia, the Spanish airline? Does not that show that, in 1992, the people were right to say that Mr. Kinnock was unfit to govern? It would also give us the chance to show that we are not prepared to sell British airlines short.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, but I am sure that there will be a good deal of disappointment—perhaps on both sides of the House, but certainly among my hon. Friends—about what Commissioner Kinnock appears to have agreed to.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to arrange for an early debate on the miseries inflicted on schools by vandalism and arson? The English Martyrs Roman Catholic school in my constituency has been struck by arsonists three times in the past seven months. It is desperately in need of replacement mobile classrooms, closed circuit television and fencing. The head teacher of Barleycroft primary school in my constituency was attacked in the school car park.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment was good enough to come to Leicester and look into the matter, but nothing has happened. The schools have to pay for those necessities with money that should be spent on educating the children. Please may we have a debate very soon?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but I can certainly promise to bring the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The underlying need is to carry still further forward the Government's vigorous campaign to detect and, whenever possible, prevent such crimes as he describes.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and my right hon. Friend's admirable reply, may I repeat my plea for a debate specifically on civil air transport? The decision by Transport Commissioner Kinnock could open a flood of applications for state aid by such carriers as TAP, Aer Lingus, Sabena and Olympic Airways, and consequently risk the livelihood of many of my constituents who work for British Airways.
Mr. Newton: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, and I hope that that was clear from my earlier reply. I shall bear in mind his request for a debate.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Last year, in the teeth of opposition from just about everyone, the Government

1129
allowed the merger of Scottish and Newcastle and Courage to go ahead, with the loss of 1,600 jobs—200 in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on such mergers? The people of Halifax think that there is a big connection between the £50,000 a year that the Tory party receives from Scottish and Newcastle and the Government's decision not to oppose the merger.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady knows perfectly well that such decisions are taken only after independent examination by the Director General of Fair Trading, and often the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Her suggestion is not only unfounded, but rather confirms what I was said earlier about the Opposition's tendency to smear.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of a debate on the Government White Paper "Making Waste Work", so that we can examine the excellent policies proposed by the Government and the steps taken by good Conservative boroughs such as the London borough of Bromley, the "green and clean" borough? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me when I say that it would be beneficial for the House to debate rubbish.
Mr. Newton: I think that I am right in recalling that there was a somewhat similar Wednesday morning debate not so long ago. Were my hon. Friend to encourage yet another one, I would not wish to dissuade him.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity on Wednesday to debate the report on unemployment by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Will legislation need to be changed to allow the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to move from place to place? How do we go about having it meet? Will it be the will of the House, or will it be the decree of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has asked me fairly persistently about these matters over some weeks. He will have received, subsequent to our exchanges last week, what I hope he found an encouraging reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I do not think that I am personally in a position to add to that.
Mr. John Marshall: May I join the growing number of Members who want a debate on air transport in Europe? Is it not a national scandal that a British Labour Commissioner should agree to a subsidy that can only put at risk jobs in the United Kingdom? Such a debate would give us the opportunity to point out that privatisation has led to British Airways being extremely popular and successful, and by far the best airline in Europe.
Mr. Newton: I would not necessarily choose exactly the words used by my hon. Friend, but I have already said that I share the sort of concern that he has expressed. I shall add his name to the list of those who want such a debate.
Mr. Ken Purchase: May I press the Leader of the House to give serious
1130
consideration to the arrangements for cold weather payments, especially those made in my constituency? Wolverhampton is covered by two weather stations, one in Birmingham and one in Shropshire. It is ludicrous when cold pensioners, virtually on opposite sides of the same street, are denied the same benefit, when the ambient external temperature is exactly the same. Urgent action should be taken by the Government to ensure that there is fair play and equity between pensioners in exactly the same conditions.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know of the substantial improvements that have been made to the scheme over recent years. I shall, of course, bring his specific point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support calls for a debate on the decision of Commissioner Kinnock that there should be subsidy of foreign airways, bearing it in mind that he is a resident of the borough of Ealing? His decision will threaten the jobs of many of my constituents and those of many others in England. He cannot be allowed to get away with it. Should not the House face the matter, debate it and put Commissioner Kinnock down, if it can?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard what I have already said, probably about four times. I shall ensure that his representations are also taken into account.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Mr. Harry Barnes: come up with something else.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I certainly will, Madam Speaker.
Eighteen items are awaiting consideration by European Standing Committees A and B. Some of them have been in the queue for a long time. The Leader of the House said that he would look into the matter. Has he done so? If so, what is the result?
Mr. Newton: I have obtained some information, and I hope to come back to the hon. Gentleman before too long.
Mr. Charles Hendry: May we have an early debate on the rural White Paper, so that we might discuss the important role of business in village communities, especially in the light of the assurance given by the National Westminster bank that it remains dedicated to serving the needs of customers in rural areas, despite its plan to close its Whaley Bridge branch, the fifth closure of a village branch affecting my constituency in the past two years?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is asking about the possibility of a debate on the rural affairs White Paper. I see some attractions in that, and, without commitment, will bear the matter in mind.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Last December, the Government were defeated at the end of a debate on fishing policy. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston

1131
(Sir R. Body) said that he would not take back the Government Whip until the Government had a better deal for fishing.
Is the Leader of the House able to give us an opportunity to debate fishing, so that the Minister with responsibilities for fisheries can report to the House and not only to his hon. and retreaded Friend, and so that I can raise an issue that has been brought to my attention by "Channel 4 News", on a video of illegal fishing methods practised by flags of convenience vessels registered as British, which comprise about a fifth of our fleet? They are catching fish illegally under the eyes of fishery protection vessels and landing them pretty well unpoliced in European ports. We need to debate that, and fishing generally.
Mr. Newton: I shall concentrate on the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question rather than the first. I am sure that the appropriate action for me to take would be to bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I also ask for a debate on the extraordinary decision of Commissioner Kinnock, because there is an aspect that has not been highlighted? This was the first appointment made by new Labour to Government office, and a serious decision has been taken. Those on the Labour Front Bench would have to tell us in such a debate whether the decision was taken because the right hon. Gentleman has buckled under pressure, or because real Labour still believes in subsidising nationalised industries.
Mr. Newton: The attractions of such a debate seem to grow by the minute.
Mr. Alan Simpson: The Leader of the House will be relieved to know that I will not ask
1132
him for a debate, but I should like a statement to be made in the House about local government reorganisation in Nottingham. I ask him to make representations to the Secretary of State for the Environment and to point out three things to him: first, Nottingham and, I think, Plymouth, would remain the only two major cities that have not been able to get a commitment to unitary status if their orders are not laid; secondly, they have remained longest in the queue for reorganisation and unitary status; and, thirdly, in Nottingham's case, delay of a year would cost the city an unavoidable additional £500,000, which everyone in the locality would like to avoid. I hope that we can press on with unitary status and reorganisation.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will bear those points in mind.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House assist me and other hon. Members by having a word with the Home Secretary before we debate policing in London next Monday, and draw his attention to a reply that he recently gave me, which showed that, in 1994, 959 people who were apprehended while committing burglary were cautioned but not prosecuted? Will he ask the Home Secretary to be prepared to reply in advance to questions that I have tabled for reply on 6 February, on page 1326 of the blues, which probe the extent of the scandal whereby people who have committed the serious offence of burglary are only cautioned? Will he tell us whether those people are included in the so-called "clear-up" figures of the crime statistics? Will the Home Secretary come clean next Monday on that scandal?
Mr. Newton: I shall warn my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters.

Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
4.2 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): It is a great privilege and pleasure for me to open the debate on the Royal Navy. As we speak today, the Royal Navy is at work around the world, discharging its many and varied commitments with the dedication and professionalism that is its hallmark.
I should like to open this annual debate by highlighting some of the Royal Navy's achievements since we debated it last year. First is its work in the Adriatic. Two weeks ago, the House paid tribute to the vital contribution made by the British Army in the former Yugoslavia. Today, the House will wish to congratulate the Royal Navy on the immense part that it, too, has played and continues to play.
Our carrier task group, currently led by HMS Illustrious, has made a major contribution to enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia. In September, aircraft from HMS Invincible, which I visited in Portsmouth this week, played a significant role in the highly successful air campaign to deter the Bosnian Serbs from further attacks following their brutal attack on the Sarajevo marketplace. Sea Harrier aircraft from our carriers have flown over 2,600 sorties on, or in preparation for, missions in the area.
Other ships, currently HMS Brazen and HMS Beaver, have been involved in Operation Sharp Guard, the combined NATO/WEU operation to enforce the arms embargo and other sanctions against the former Yugoslavia, in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. Sharp Guard units have now challenged over 51,000 ships, boarding more than 4,000 of them and diverting more than 1,000 for inspection.
On land, 845 Squadron of the Fleet Air Arm has been in Split for over three years, providing vital casualty evacuation and helicopter support for British forces and now for IFOR. Let me take this opportunity to extend my heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the three young British service men killed in the tragic land mine incident in Bosnia on Sunday. It has served as a sad reminder of the inherent dangers of the IFOR mission, and of the strength asked of the families who stay behind. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the courage, skill and professionalism of the three young men—and, indeed, all our service men and women who are involved in an operation that offers the best hope for bringing lasting peace to a troubled land.
Elsewhere in the world, the Navy has maintained a UK presence in the Gulf, in the south Atlantic and in the Caribbean. Again this year, the achievements of the West Indies guard ship deserve special mention, not least following the eruption of a volcano on Montserrat on 18 July. HMS Southampton, supported by RFA Oakleaf, provided the Montserrat authorities with much-needed assistance for two months. That included beach surveys, erecting temporary accommodation and flying twice-daily helicopter surveys into the crater to allow scientists to maintain a very close watch on the vents, from as close as 10 ft.
1134
The Navy was also able to help when the southern part of the island had to be evacuated in August, and troops from 42 Commando Royal Marines were deployed to assist with the additional policing burden. Finally, 148 personnel from the Commando Logistics regiment were sent to Antigua for three weeks in September to establish evacuation centres in the event that they might be required—which, happily, they were not.
Hurricane Luis, one of the most severe storms to hit the Caribbean in recent years, also brought work for HMS Southampton and RFA Oakleaf. Southampton was involved in the rescue of 13 Venezuelan coastguards from an isolated island that was in danger of being swamped by huge seas. Luis wreaked particular havoc on Anguilla. Southampton and the trusty RFA were on the scene within hours; work parties immediately set about restoring power and communications, and helped to repair key facilities such as the airport.
The Navy's ability to respond so quickly and decisively to crises around the world—as those examples have shown—underlines the high standard of its training, and the superlative quality of its people.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Navy's ability to intervene around the world, and to project power in the current fluid international situation, is more important than ever? For that purpose, effective amphibious forces are required, including dedicated assault ships. Can my hon. Friend say when the replacements for HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless, the landing platform docks, will be ordered? HMS Fearless, which is now trying to put to sea, is a rust bucket.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree about the importance of amphibious operations. I visited HMS Fearless on Tuesday, and I shall say more about it later.
Last year also saw a Royal Navy task group deployment to the far east and the Pacific. As with previous such deployments, Australasia '95 was an outstanding success on many different levels. The Navy was able to renew its links with distant friends and allies. It undertook joint exercises with the Australian and Indian navies and made the first ship visit to New Zealand since 1983. That deployment also provided a tangible demonstration of our continuing commitment to the five-power defence arrangements, and helped to promote British exports in the region.
Closer to home, the Navy has been closely involved in building stronger relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe. Ship visits and joint exercises have helped to break down old barriers and to form new and lasting friendships. In the autumn, 130 Royal Marines were deployed to Romania for mountain training and joint exercises with the Romanian army, and the Royal Marines also led a multinational operation in the Baltic states to train and equip an infantry battalion drawn from the forces of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That is regarded as the most successful example of co-operation between NATO, neutral states and former Soviet Union states.
The Royal Navy continues of course to be very busy in our own waters. The fishery protection squadron goes about its vital task of enforcing legislation and ensuring that all fishermen can carry out their lawful business. It provides a vital presence in the Irish box following full Spanish accession to the common fisheries policy.

1135
The Royal Navy also made a huge contribution to the tuna fishery last year. The season passed off peacefully, in marked contrast to the problems encountered in the Bay of Biscay in 1994. By establishing good co-operation with its foreign counterparts on the tuna grounds, and with our fishermen and the industry generally, the Navy helped to ensure that there were no significant incidents involving our vessels during the tuna season, and earned the thanks and respect of our fishermen in the process.
I have described a few of the many tasks undertaken by the Royal Navy, but I have not so far mentioned its most important responsibility: the maintenance of our strategic deterrent—the ultimate guarantee of our independence and security. The Trident system is one of the most sophisticated and challenging programmes this country has ever undertaken. It has been brought in—after 11 and a half years—on time and under the original cost estimate, which is a truly remarkable achievement.
The first two submarines, Vanguard and Victorious, are now in operational service. The third, Vigilant, was launched in October and will shortly embark on contractor's sea trials. Construction of the fourth, Vengeance, is proceeding to plan.
Mr. Llew Smith: If it came to the crunch, would the Minister be willing to press the button to fire those nuclear weapons? If those nuclear weapons were fired, what repercussions would it have for our environment?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am conscious of the fact that, in asking that question, the hon. Gentleman is one of 42 Opposition Members who asked us to scrap our entire nuclear deterrent programme. I had the privilege of being on board HMS Victorious to witness her first test firing of an unarmed Trident missile off the east coast of the United States, as part of the submarine's demonstration and shake-down operation.
The exercise was incredibly professionally carried out, and the excellent co-operation between the United States navy and the Royal Navy was very heartening. It was an experience that I shall never forget. The firing went successfully, as did the firing by the submarine's second crew a few weeks later.
If the Labour party had been in power for the past 17 years, no British Minister would have had that experience because, in the 1980s, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) added his name to an advertisement that said:
"Parliamentary Labour Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament supports the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory."
Indeed, as recently as October last year, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) put his name to an amendment calling for the scrapping of Trident.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield now says that he was wrong when he signed that advertisement, but the 42 Opposition Members say that he was right then and he is wrong now. However, we know, and the country knows, where the instincts of the Labour party lie—in the direction of disarmament. It may say one thing now, but in power it would do another.
1136
As regards conventional warfare, I would like to say a few words—
Mr. Llew Smith rose—
Mr. Alan Simpson rose—
Mr. Arbuthnot: I have a lot to get through.
Mr. Smith rose—
Mr. Simpson rose—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Arbuthnot: As regards conventional warfare, I would like to say a few words about each of the Royal Navy's three core capabilities—nuclear-powered attack submarines, aircraft carrier groups and amphibious forces.
First, our fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines—
Mr. Simpson rose—
Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall give way in a few minutes.
Those highly effective vessels can deliver fearsome firepower from forward positions with the benefit of surprise, and conduct vital covert intelligence gathering. Our current Swiftsure and Trafalgar boats are undergoing an extensive upgrade, and we are bringing into service the capable Spearfish heavyweight torpedo, the most advanced of its kind in the world.
For the longer term, we plan to replace the Swiftsure class with batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. We have decided to proceed on the basis of a design proposed by GEC Marconi, following the evaluation of complex bids from industry. We intend to begin detailed discussions with the firm soon.
Last October, we also announced an order for conventionally armed Tomahawk land attack missiles.
Mr. Simpson: Before the Minister began to talk about conventional missiles, I intended to tell him that I was pleased that he was able to experience the launch of a trial Trident missile. However, has he visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki to see what it is like to be on the receiving end of such a missile? Would he be willing to take responsibility for the scale of human destruction that follows the decision to press that button?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it confirms the point that I made earlier, which I have also made in several other speeches and at Question Time. The Labour party is dedicated to nuclear disarmament—and that is not all. Let us not forget that the amount of deterrence that we gain from having a nuclear deterrent, at a very low cost compared with the rest of our defence budget, is massive. But the Labour party is essentially a party of disarmers. I am happy to say that I have been to Japan to see some of those areas, and I believe that the importance of a nuclear deterrent has been shown in Europe over the past 50 years—the longest period of peace for many years.
Mr. John Hutton: The Minister mentioned the Government's plan to replace the Swiftsure

1137
class submarines. Why did he not make a proper statement about his intentions to the House before Christmas? Why did he sneak the decision out in a faxed letter to me? Why did he not have the courage to come here and make a full statement?
Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman made that point on the day the decision was announced. A huge number of procurement decisions have to be announced. The news was good, and there was no question of my sneaking it out. If I had thought that I could get away with making a statement to the House about it, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would have done so. However, I suspect that if I had, he might also have complained. The fact remains that some companies are successful in winning competitions and others are not. There always have to be losers. It is a pity when companies lose, but it has to happen.
Aircraft carriers and their embarked aircraft provide the second core capability, not only for air defence at sea but for projecting power ashore. Operations in the Adriatic have vividly demonstrated the contribution that sea-based air can make.
Our carriers are equipped with the recently updated FA2 Sea Harrier, which has proved its worth over the skies of Bosnia. Following its update and with its advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and Blue Vixen look-down radar, the Sea Harrier is now one of the best fighters in the theatre. Trials are under way to allow RAF Harrier GR7 aircraft to operate from carriers from the beginning of 1997. That will make use of the GR7's specialist ground attack capability and increase the flexibility and effectiveness of our carrier forces.
The Sea Harrier will be an extremely capable aircraft for many years to come. But given long development and production lead times, we are already considering its replacement in the next century. In December, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States to participate in the development of a possible successor.
Amphibious forces form the third of the Royal Navy's core capabilities, and I entirely agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The courage, skill and endurance of the Royal Marines are admired the world over. They are a formidable fighting force; and 3 Commando Brigade, with the Army's 5 Airborne Brigade, will form the heart of the new joint rapid deployment force. The units will train together on a regular basis and will be equipped to form the spearhead of our reaction to any crisis.
In amphibious operations, the Royal Marines rely on specialist amphibious shipping, about which a great deal of nonsense has appeared in press. I can confirm to the House that our amphibious capability is highly effective. This week, I visited HMS Fearless, one of our two landing platform docks, which is currently undergoing maintenance. That was slightly delayed following a minor fire before Christmas, but we are confident that the ship will be able to meet its operational schedule, including joint exercises with the United States in April. She will return to service in a better material state than for several years.
More generally, some have tried to suggest that the UK's wider amphibious capability is in decline. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are enhancing the effectiveness of our existing vessels and planning for new,
1138
even more powerful ships in the future. Last year saw the launch of the helicopter carrier, HMS Ocean. She is currently fitting out and is due to enter service in 1998. HMS Ocean is the size of one of our aircraft carriers and will carry 800 troops, their equipment and supporting helicopters. As the House knows, we are also in contract negotiations with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. for an order to replace our landing platform docks.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Conservative Members are proud to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's exemplary armed forces procurement record. There is, however, just one exception—the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. It is 20 years since replacements were first considered, while it is five years since a Minister told me that the replacements would be ordered shortly. The vessels are steam-driven and their equipment is out of date. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that they should be replaced before too long?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I take my hon. Friend's point. That was one of the reasons why I visited HMS Fearless on Tuesday. Despite the fact that there is some old-fashioned equipment on board HMS Fearless, it is ready to do the tasks that we set it. While I hesitate to be repetitive, I must say that I hope that we shall be able to make a decision shortly.
Mr. Wilkinson: Can my hon. Friend ensure that we retain competition, whereby rival yards with comparable capabilities can bid? We do not have Swan Hunter any more—sadly—and in a no acceptable price no contract competition, it may now be hard to drive the price down to keep the costs within the Royal Navy's budget.
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend has clearly read my speech, because again that is something that I shall come to in a few minutes.
Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen): I am troubled and concerned—as are many thousands of people in Glasgow and Southampton—about the future of the replacement for type 22 frigates. Does the Minister intend to give any information on the matter?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall come to that matter in a moment.
The strategic deterrent and the three core capabilities that I have outlined make the Royal Navy one of the most effective and respected navies in the world. That pre-eminence is underpinned by our escort fleet of 35 destroyers and frigates, which provides vital anti-air and anti-submarine protection for our carriers and amphibious forces and carries out a multitude of other roles. Nine of the modern Duke class type 23 frigates are already in service and one, HMS Richmond, has been accepted from the shipbuilders and is undergoing sea trials. Three more are being constructed and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement on a further order soon.
Mr. David Chidgey: I am pleased to hear that, but I should like some more information. The Minister must be aware that in Eastleigh, Vosper Thornycroft is an important employer and that the delays in the announcement of the result of the tender for the type 23s, which should have been made before Christmas,

1139
are causing much concern to my constituents. Some 1,500 jobs are at stake and the shipyard's forward planning is being adversely affected. Will the Minister give an idea of when the decision will be announced?
Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman has been to see me to make his points. I have also spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) about that important matter. We hope to be able to make a decision in the next few weeks. It is important to get it right, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman.
It is important to remember that our defence capability, including the number of frigates and other naval ships that we are able to order, depends on having a sufficiently robust defence budget—as, under this Government, it has always been and will always continue to be. That would be undermined by some of the proposals of the Opposition parties. Having said that, we hope to make an announcement on the type 23 frigates very soon.
Mr. Murphy: This will be a matter for the following debate, but does the Minister accept that even a delay of some weeks could affect Southampton and Glasgow? There are 1,100 jobs in Glasgow and 1,500 in Southampton dependent on the decision. Weeks cost jobs, and those areas cannot afford to lose any more jobs.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I understand that. It is very important to make the right decision.
Mr. Winston Churchill: Given that the Government and the Ministry of Defence are in some discomfort over the negotiations with Lord Weinstock on the procurement of submarines and landing platform docks and that there is no other facility available to offer competition, does my hon. Friend realise the enormous U-turn that would arise if, in consequence of decisions taken on the procurement of frigates for the Royal Navy, the Government were effectively to end all competition in the United Kingdom by driving Vosper Thornycroft out of business? That would not be the action that one would expect of a Conservative Government committed to competition.
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend refers to a discomfort that, I hope he will forgive me for saying, I do not feel. The NAPNOC—no acceptable price no contract—method of producing acceptable prices for the MOD has been very successful. I shall come to that shortly.
Helicopters are a key element for today's escort vessels. The Royal Navy's Lynx mark 3 helicopters are being upgraded to mark 8 standard by introducing a fully computerised tactical system and improved sensors. From 1998 onwards, we shall be adding to the Royal Navy's helicopters with the introduction of the highly effective EH101 Merlin. The first Royal Navy production aircraft was delivered in December 1995 and is undergoing trials and evaluations. To modernise the Royal Navy's air defence systems, we are also participating in the common new generation frigate programme. In the next century, that will replace the anti-air cover currently provided by our type 42 destroyers. We are making good progress in discussions with our French and Italian collaborative
1140
partners on both the ship as a whole and its principal anti-air missile system. We hope to announce the outcome of those discussions to the House in the near future.
The Navy depends critically for its support on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The Adriatic is a fine example. RFA vessels, currently Olwen and Fort Grange, operate as an integral part of our carrier task group. RFA Resource is now in her second two-year tour in Split, providing unfailing support to British forces deployed in theatre.
As part of our continuing commitment to the RFA, I am pleased to announce that tomorrow we are issuing an invitation to tender for the design and build of up to two auxiliary oilers. The ships are planned to replace the aging 0 class fleet tankers. They will be double-hulled, to conform with the latest international regulations in respect of oil pollution, and capable of replenishing front-line ships at sea. They will be built largely to commercial standards, with some military features, which will include a flight deck and hangar for one helicopter.
I should also like to mention the role of merchant shipping, which is used to augment the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Our policy is to charter merchant ships on the international market to provide the greatest range of ships at a competitive price, thus ensuring value for money for the British taxpayer. British shipowners have the opportunity to offer their vessels for Ministry of Defence business. We believe that a substantial part of any shipping requirement can be met in that way. The deployment to Bosnia in recent weeks has been an excellent example of how we can put tens of thousands of tonnes of equipment and stores into theatre for thousands of personnel, by using the international market.
Modern and effective front-line forces require an efficient and responsive support. Last year, following "Front Line First", we announced the redeployment of minor war vessels from Rosyth naval base, which will become a Royal Navy support establishment by April this year. I want to pay tribute to the loyalty of the work force at Rosyth, who have maintained their traditionally high standards of performance throughout this difficult period.
I want today to restate the MOD's commitment to assisting with the regeneration of the Rosyth area. Last year, we selected Rosyth 2000 Ltd., a consortium of leading Scottish businesses, as the preferred bidder for the Rosyth naval base site. We are now in negotiation with Rosyth 2000 and are seeking to ensure that the decommissioning of the naval base, and the regeneration of the area through private sector initiatives, are managed in such a way as to achieve a smooth transition from defence to productive civil use.
I should also like to mention our plans for the sale of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth. We received tenders from Devonport Management Ltd. for Devonport and from Babcock International Group for Rosyth, and I have since been negotiating with them. I regret the continuing uncertainty for the work forces. I hope to receive recommendations within the next few weeks and to announce final proposals as soon as possible thereafter, allowing for full consultation with the remaining MOD employees in both dockyards.
At Devonport, we are also in negotiation with the consortium forming Devonport Management Ltd. for the design and construction of the facilities for refitting nuclear-powered submarines. We hope to make an announcement in a similar time scale. Our plans remain

1141 for Devonport to be the only nuclear refitting dockyard in the future. Recent progress in the negotiations has been encouraging. The facilities are planned to be ready in time to meet the refit plan for the Vanguard class, which is programmed to start at around the turn of the century.
Mr. David Jamieson: I welcome the Minister's statement that an announcement will be made in the next few weeks about privatisation of the dockyards in both Rosyth and Devonport. But does he not realise that there is some cynicism among Opposition Members and a belief that this is a sort of Whitehall farce, because we have sat here so many times over the past two and a half years and heard other Ministers make exactly the same assertion?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I have said before, and I say again, that it is an extremely complicated and important development. It is essential to get it right. The negotiations are protracted and difficult, and that reflects the complexity of the issue.
I shall say something about our defence procurement policy in general and then speak more specifically about warship building.
The Government have today replied to the report of the joint Defence and Trade and Industry Committees on "Aspects of Defence Procurement and Industrial Policy". Our response will be published by the Committees in the usual way. I do not want to pre-empt it, but I should like to set out briefly the main conclusions of our separate review of defence procurement policy, which was under way before the Committees launched their inquiry.
The background is the need to deliver to our service men and women the battle-winning equipment that they need in a cost-effective way, to the benefit of the taxpayer. The rigorous pursuit of value for money has been a great success for our forces, for the taxpayer and for British industry. We must also ensure that our supplier base remains efficient and competitive and can meet our immediate and longer-term needs. We consulted industry through the National Defence Industries Council as part of our review. That continuing consultation will help us develop the best procurement policy for Britain.
We have drawn three key conclusions from our review. First, value for money, through competition, must remain the cornerstone of our policy, and it must take full account of through-life costs.
Secondly, the MOD will, with the Department of Trade and Industry, take more systematic account of defence industrial factors in our procurement decisions. We shall carefully consider the balance between off-the-shelf procurement and collaborative or national development of equipment, to ensure that we can maintain our competition policy in the short and longer term, meet our operational needs without unacceptable compromise, support the equipment that we have, and use our industrial resources to take full advantage of opportunities for collaboration.
Thirdly, we shall continue to pursue cost-effective collaboration. Much has been achieved, but we believe that collaboration, especially in Europe, will be increasingly important in future. That is why we are pursuing the concept of a European armaments agency and why we wish to participate in the Franco-German armaments structure that came into being at the start of
1142
1996. In addition, the United Kingdom defence industry has important relationships in the United States, and there are good opportunities to build on those.
I am confident that that development of our procurement policy will be welcomed by the House and by the UK defence industry.
I shall now speak about the warship building industry. The Government recognise the benefits of preserving competition within industry wherever that is practicable, but there has been overcapacity in the warship yards, and consolidation has continued in the past 12 months. Swan Hunter's Wallsend facility has been sold by the receivers, bringing to an end Tyneside's strong tradition of supplying quality ships to the Royal Navy. This year, GEC Marine has taken over VSEL, bringing two warship builders under one management. Against that background, we have sought new ways to introduce competition.
One option has been to supplement the traditional competition between yards by encouraging established defence contractors to compete as prime contractors. That is already working in practice. VSEL teamed with Kvaerner Govan for the construction of HMS Ocean. The hull has been built under subcontract at Kvaerner's commercial yard at Govan and the fitting out of military systems will be undertaken at VSEL's Barrow-in-Furness yard. Similar arrangements may apply to the auxiliary oiler competition, in which at least one of the invitations will be issued to a team of prime contractor and commercial shipbuilder.
Competition policy has proved successful; the price that we pay for ships for the Royal Navy has reduced considerably in real terms. It has also brought the benefit of innovative designs—for example, in the batch 2 Trafalgar class competition. Where competition is not possible, it has become our practice to price non-competitive contracts at the outset. That no acceptable price no contract strategy has been adopted in the negotiations with VSEL for the replacement of HMS Fearless and Intrepid. Within that framework, we encourage our contractors to adopt modern procurement strategies, such as a competitive "make or buy" approach to subcontracting, and to use the latest techniques, such as computer-aided design.
I have ranged widely in my speech and touched on the Royal Navy's achievements, its equipment and its supporting infrastructure, but in summary I wish to say only that the United Kingdom has a first-class Navy. It is a service with an unrivalled tradition and honourable history, but it is also a modern, capable and formidable fighting force that is rightly eyed with envy and respected by others. The Navy is at work around the clock and around the globe and it remains as crucial to the nation today as it has always been. In short, it is a Navy of which the House and the country can be truly proud.
4.40 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: It is extremely fortunate for the House that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is leading the debate, because it seems that he will be extremely busy for the next few weeks making decisions about the type 23 replacements and, of course, the royal dockyards.
What troubles the Opposition—it might be a matter for those responsible for the business of the House rather than for the Ministry of Defence—is that there is only one

1143
occasion during the parliamentary year when we debate the Navy. I should have thought that it would have been better to delay the annual debate for a few weeks so that hon. Members from all parties who have deep concerns about procurement could speak in the debate.
I have read some earlier naval debates. The Minister was right when he said that the Navy has been extremely flexible over the past five to 10 years—it has had to cope with different situations around the world. Twenty years ago, of course, the Navy had to deal with problems east of Suez, and 10 years ago there was the problem of the east and of communism. All of that has gone, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will want to pay tribute to the skill and determination of the men and women of the Royal Navy over those years.
Threats still exist, of course. The Minister touched on them. There is still uncertainty in parts of eastern Europe and there are problems in the middle east. Those of us who were fortunate enough to listen to the Prime Minister of Israel yesterday realise how important the peace process is in that part of the world. There is also the staggering growth in the far east. The possible threats remain, not just to this country, but to peace and security on the planet.
The Minister was right to draw the House's attention to the activities of the Royal Navy in the West Indies, the Falklands, the Persian Gulf and, until 1997, Hong Kong. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree with the tribute that the Minister paid to the Royal Navy for its activities in the former Yugoslavia. It has played its part in Operation Sharp Guard to enforce the United Nations embargo on arms and the trade sanctions.
I want to pay a personal tribute to the Royal Marines for their work in Northern Ireland. For six months, I was an Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, and I realise the great courage that our forces needed to play their role there. The same is true in respect of the Royal Navy's coastal activities. Some weeks ago, we had our debate on the Army. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) was, I believe, unjustly criticised for his opposition to certain Government policies for the Army. It is important to put on record what we feel our role in opposition should be. It is not to attack those who serve in our armed forces, but to criticise and bring to account the Ministers responsible for the defence policies of the United Kingdom.
It will not be too long before Conservative Members have the same role as we have now, and they must realise that they will have to criticise whatever policies a Labour Government will present. I have to say, however, that, in the past few weeks, the Government have seemed more like an Opposition than a Government.
There have been dramatic changes in world politics during the past few years. Any party that forms the Government has to respond to those changes, but we have always charged that the Government's response has been badly thought out. We believe that, although the cuts that have been made might have been necessary in certain instances, they have not been defence led. Rather, they have been led by the needs of the Treasury. I fear that, occasionally, the Government's policy has been dominated by adherence to a too rigid doctrine of free market forces, which does not always go with the Navy's needs.
1144
There has been an unstructured rundown of the Royal Navy, involving ships, submarines, people, dockyards, the staff college at Greenwich and supply depots. No one would say that defence in 1996 requires the same resources as it required in 1986, but we are saying that there is a need for a proper strategic review of how defence is handled. We need consider only the redundancies—in July 1995, an admiral, 460 officers, 2,000 ratings and 130 Royal Marines were made redundant. By the turn of the century, the Royal Navy's strength will be only 44,000.
In 1993, the Select Committee on Defence report stated:
"There has been no period of financial calm: just the opposite. No plans seem to survive the next public expenditure round. Every activity is reviewed, and revised again and again."
The Select Committee later stated:
"For many service personnel and civilian employees, the prospect of redundancy hardly denotes stability … Market testing, which has barely affected most of the major centres of MoD civilian employment, is gathering pace, importing a further element of turbulence."
I understand that the Royal Navy has started its own internal study to see whether it can still carry out its traditional duties, following the defence cuts. Sir Jock Slater was quoted in The Daily Telegraph—not normally a friend of the Labour party—on 3 October 1995 as saying:
"We have to make absolutely certain that if the crunch were to come then we can regenerate … Overall our people are pretty stretched now."
He went on to say that he was concerned about the effect that the reforms were having on morale and that the changes had increased work loads and eroded job security. He continued:
"There are no two ways about that at all … I am concerned about the effect it has on our people."
I have no doubt that both sides of the House agree with the Labour party's main principles. First, we believe that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy—it was a Labour Foreign Secretary who helped to set NATO up in the late 1940s. Secondly, we believe that the United Nations should be supported—I am sure that the Government agree—especially in its humanitarian activities. Thirdly, we believe that we should have the resources necessary for the effective defence of our country. Those are the three planks of the Labour party's defence policy and I am sure that the Government do not disagree with any of them. However, we differ fundamentally on how to achieve those aims.
Time and again, the Government have derided our ideas for a strategic defence review. The French and the Americans have had one. We had them in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and even in the early 1980s. Why cannot we have one now that the world has changed so dramatically? I am not alone in calling for a strategic review. Anthony Preston, the editor-in-chief of a magazine called "Naval Forces", has said:
"The time has come, not for blindly continuing to cut the budget, but for the logical review of the Navy…What I am worried about is just hacking away at the foliage, without working out what the job of the Navy is."
The Sunday Times, another paper usually friendly to the Conservative party, said in 1993:
"instead of conducting a new defence review, which common sense now demands and the armed forces want, the government has hidden its defence policy behind a cloak of secrecy so impenetrable that

1145
nobody knows what it is or what the taxpayer actually gets for £24 billion a year… A defence review would be an opportunity to stop this death by a thousand cuts that is destroying what is still one of the finest armed forces in the world."
We would all agree with that.
The surface fleet is half the size it was a quarter of a century ago but, as the Minister admitted in his speech, our commitments have not changed particularly. We still have commitments in the Caribbean, the south Atlantic, and the middle east, and we are now committed in the Adriatic, although we are losing Hong Kong—it represents the only change in this area. We are told that the operation is very tight—
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Is the burden of the hon. Gentleman's remarks the idea that the Royal Navy has too many tasks to conduct? Is he saying that his defence review would lead to a reduction in the tasks that the Royal Navy undertakes?
Mr. Murphy: Not at all. I have said that resources must match commitments. I remind the Minister that when his party was in opposition, one of his predecessors, Sir Ian Gilmour, was asked the same question by the Labour party. He replied that it was only when the Conservatives were in government that they would be in a proper position to look at the details of a strategic defence review. We cannot conduct such a review until we have all the necessary intelligence given us by the various civil servants and by the armed services themselves. What we can say is that, over the past five years, the Government have had every possible opportunity to conduct a defence review and have failed miserably to do so.
Perhaps the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will tell us, when he winds up, what is to happen to Britannia. I understand from another Conservative newspaper this week, the Daily Mail, that the national lottery might pay for a new vessel. I am sure that the Minister will scotch that rumour later on.
We are pleased that the Government have retained the fishery protection and hydrographic services, but we are troubled about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—there is some doubt among the experts as to whether we have the answer right.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will raise the question of the Royal Marines school of music. If he does not, I certainly will. Many of us were disturbed that it should have been moved from Deal. We find it particularly worrying that it is to be housed in temporary accommodation, bearing in mind all the trials with which that group of men and women have had to put up over the years. Temporary accommodation is not a good solution.
Will the Minister to make it absolutely clear—my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will speak about the detail—what is to happen to the Royal Naval college at Greenwich? I am delighted to say that the Defence Committee, comprising Members from both sides of the House, is to take evidence at Greenwich in the weeks ahead. I hope that we will be given an assurance this week that there will be no repeat of the Admiralty arch fiasco. It did nothing for the reputation of the Ministry of Defence or its Ministers.
The Minister touched on the royal dockyards. My party has a two-dockyard solution to the problem. I should like now to elaborate on what I said earlier in an intervention,
1146
and what I shall say applies also to the type 23 frigate replacements. The perpetual delays emanating from the MOD are bad from a number of points of view: the first is that the House of Commons is not given a proper opportunity to debate the decisions. Decisions given in answers to written parliamentary questions are not the same as debates in the House.
As I said before, this debate should have been an ideal opportunity for the Minister to appear before us and for us to ask him questions about the replacements for the frigates and the future of the two royal dockyards. Someone told me today that MOD no longer stands for Ministry of Defence—it stands for Ministry of Delay. I am sure that the thousands of people who need decisions to be made for the sake of maintaining their jobs in Glasgow and Southampton are deeply troubled by the fact that the Minister can give us no information about the replacements for the frigates.
An answer given to a Conservative Member this week by the Minister states that he is considering a batch of frigates "of up to three". What does that mean—one, two or three? The differences are clearly enormous. If only one ship is to be built, thousands of jobs will be put at risk if the others are not built too. Moreover, we need to know when the ships will be built by—the turn of the century, next century? The answers are vital, and I hope that we shall have a proper opportunity to debate them in the weeks ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) will touch on procurement matters later if he catches the occupant of the Chair's eye. The Defence Manufacturers Association recently gave evidence to the joint Trade and Industry and Defence Committees as follows:
"Sadly, the MOD's procurement policies have, until now, done little of a positive nature to support industry's chances of retaining a competitive edge".
That was said in 1995. We are pleased, however, that the Minister said today that there will be more co-operation with our European partners—that is indeed good news. I only hope that the Secretary of State agrees.
My hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Motherwell, North recently referred in this place to the considerable number of cases of financial mismanagement in the MOD. They ought to be put on record, not least because the Secretary of State told his party conference last year:
"Every day, every week, every month we will convert waste into weapons."
Well, he has gone about things the other way round: weapons have been made into waste, and the waste of money in particular has been staggering.
Eight hundred million pounds has been overspent on Trident construction facilities at Faslane; £6 million has been spent needlessly on consultants' fees for MOD housing plans; £8 million has gone on schemes to privatise the royal dockyards. But all these pale into insignificance compared with the £261 million squandered on refitting warships which are then sold off at rock bottom prices or even used for target practice. HMS Andromeda was refitted at a cost of £27 million and then sold for £65,000. HMS Battleaxe was refitted in July 1994 at a cost of £13 million—only two years ago—and sold by the MOD for an unknown sum—
Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from, but I can assure

1147
him that the prices of the ships that the MOD sells are commercially confidential. The £65,000 figure he quotes is completely wrong.
It is also important to remember the significant change in the defence climate of the entire world when the cold war ended. A number of ships were going through their refit at the time, and it became plain that they were no longer necessary for our defence requirements. It was right to dispose of them, and we shall continue to dispose of such ships. Disposal generates significant sums which are then available for spending on new ships. Often, refitting for ocverseas owners provides a great deal of work for British shipyards.
Mr. Murphy: The figures are not made up; they come from parliamentary answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. We knew about the changes in world politics well before 1994. We are asking: why refit all these ships when we know that we are not going to use them? Had there been a proper defence review, none of this might have happened.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I know that my hon. Friend does not have time to watch much television, but did he see the "Spitting Image" programme last Sunday? It referred to the Polaris submarine HMS Renown, which was refitted in 1993 at a cost of £155 million. Since then, it has been left in dock awaiting decommissioning at a cost of £29 million per annum. Does that not add weight to his point?
Mr. Murphy: I fear that I did not see "Spitting Image" last Sunday, but I saw it the week before and I was much taken with the uniform worn by the Secretary of State for Defence. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North has also raised the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) makes so well.
Mr. Arbuthnot: The refit of HMS Renown—which took five years—was finished in 1992 and the ship then went out on three operational patrols. It was later decided that it was no longer needed because of the end of the cold war and because of the significant success of the Trident programme, which is under budget and on time.
Mr. Murphy: Perhaps the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be able to enlighten us later about the troublesome question of the four unwanted Upholder class submarines. We understand that some sort of deal has been reached with the Canadian Government about training facilities for both the Army and the RAF at Goose bay. Can the Minister tell us what prices we are likely to get for our submarines and to what use we are putting the Goose bay facilities, which many people believe are under-utilised?
The Reserve Forces Bill is currently in the other place and I assume that it will be introduced in this House in the next few weeks—if the Government can decide what to put in it. The Evening Standard—another newspaper that is friendly to the Government—recently described the Reserve Forces Bill as
"one of the sloppiest and worst-drafted pieces of work in living memory".
1148
The Government tabled 200 amendments after the Bill was printed and before its Committee stage in the House of Lords. We shall not contest the legislation, but we hope that it will be better drafted when it comes to the House of Commons.
I believe that the Royal Naval Reserve has probably suffered more than any other reserve force during the past few years. It has only 3,000 men and women and 13 units. Eleven units have been closed, there is only one unit in Scotland and there is none in Yorkshire and Humberside. RNR ships have been lost also. We must offer worthwhile training at sea and proper command experience opportunities to our Royal Naval Reserve officers.
The complete loss of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service in 1993 was particularly disturbing. We lost 2,700 volunteers and there are now fewer opportunities—nothing like those that exist in the Territorial Army—for men and women to serve as ratings in the Royal Navy. The Government must address that problem.
I pay tribute to the Maritime Voluntary Service, which has been formally constituted as a national training organisation and is a registered charity. It continues to grow, and shore premises and afloat billets have been obtained with assistance from a wide variety of organisations which recognise the importance of maritime skills. There are 50 units around our coast and its volunteers train to a very high standard. I am sure that the House will join me in supporting the MVS and in wishing it every possible success.
The sea cadets and the reserves link communities throughout the country to the armed forces and we are grateful to them for providing that essential connection. I shall make a constituency point and pay special tribute to the TS Kittiwake in Cwmbran. It took part in the recent VE and VJ day ceremonies and, like many such units all over the country, it provides marvellous opportunities for young men and women—including employment opportunities in the Royal Navy later.
I read today in Hansard that the Pay Services Directorate has been established. The Armed Forces Bill, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North has responsibility on behalf of the Opposition, deals with personnel matters, but I shall touch briefly on the subject of pay in the Royal Navy. The 1992 Tory manifesto said:
"Our Forces deserve the excellent pay and conditions we have secured for them".
There has been much to-ing and fro-ing in the Chamber this afternoon about saying one thing and doing another. The Tory manifesto said that, but this is what the Government have done: levels of pay for higher ranks have increased, but pay for lower ranks has fallen substantially in relation to average wages. The figures for average earnings reveal that, from the period 1979 to 1995, admirals' pay has risen by 12.3 per cent., leading seamen's pay has risen by 5 per cent. and able seamen's pay has decreased by 15.4 per cent. The Government say one thing and do another.
The biggest problem that we face—the Minister referred to it in some detail, as did the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers)—is the Royal Navy's inability to maintain its existing operations. That is extremely worrying. It is highly unlikely that we could mount another Falklands campaign, as we no longer have the necessary sealift capability. We are told—we were not

1149
informed of it officially—that, last year, the Ministry of Defence directorate of operational capability conducted a "paper exercise" to ascertain whether this country could mount an amphibious operation similar to the Falklands campaign. It allegedly found weaknesses in our sealift capability.
The Merchant Navy has declined drastically—a fact which concerned the Defence Committee. It found that the number of militarily useful ships has decreased by 16 per cent. since 1992. The number of British general cargo vessels has halved since 1986 and the number of ro-ro ferries has decreased by a third. In 1982, 51,000 people served in our Merchant Navy: today the figure is 17,000 and it is estimated to fall to 4,000 by 2010. Fifty-four ships were sent to the Falklands, but Britain sent only 11 to the Gulf, while France sent 27. Many of the British ships that were sent are manned by foreign crews, which causes some problems. For example, Japanese crews refused to enter the Gulf in 1992 and India withdrew its nationals from merchant vessels which were used in the Falklands campaign. The Chamber of Shipping recently said:
"It is now a fact that our armed forces rely on the willingness of the commercial market, the willingness of foreign owners, the willingness of foreign crews to provide the much vaunted flexibility and mobility of our armed forces rather than British owners and British seamen."
Mr. Soames: I know that the hon. Gentleman, like a rather large pheasant, will not be diverted from his flight path. We all share some concerns about the flagging of British ships and regret that there are not as many of them as before. However, British forces have just completed the largest deployment of troops to Europe since the last war. That was performed in a spectacularly successful and orderly fashion without any difficulties whatsoever. It was highly effective and extremely efficient. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the most important criterion for the deployment of our troops abroad?
Mr. Murphy: I am glad that the Minister referred to pheasants. One of the reasons why I did not see the Secretary of State for Defence on the "Spitting Image" programme last Sunday is that I was eating pheasant. They tell me that it is good for the figure.
As to the Minister's reference to sealift, we accept that efficiency and effectiveness are important. However, we must not forget that we have a duty to try to ensure that our Merchant Navy is up to scratch and can be used in those circumstances. We must remember that foreign ships and crews cannot be as reliable as our British Merchant Navy in many respects. It is not good to have to rely on other countries because the Merchant Navy has declined so drastically.
The Minister said that the Ministry of Defence borrowed two United States military transport vehicles for operations in Bosnia. Not one British ship was used to ferry equipment; we even used a ship that was registered in Luxembourg —a country which, as hon. Members will know, has no coast.
Last year, the MOD chartered 70 vessels for Bosnia. Only 15 were British and the rest came from Panama, Malta, Ukraine, Latvia and heaven knows where else. It is important to give credence to the idea that there is a future for the Merchant Navy. Part of that future lies in its relationship with the Royal Navy and its ability to help the Navy out.
1150
Ministers will know, because their admirals will tell them, that the future of the Royal Navy is in what the technicians call littoral warfare, in which the three services operate together in task groups of helicopters, carriers and other assault ships near enemy coasts. That expeditionary role requires proper amphibious forces and equipment. The Minister is right to say that no one can question the excellent ability of, for example, the Royal Marines.
The Minister did not answer the questions that were put to him by his hon. Friends. What is happening to our aging and rusting landing ships is important. The House was told this week by the Minister that replacements for HMS Fearless and Intrepid would have to wait, not a few weeks this time, but until around the turn of the century.
We were told in another answer this week that HMS Intrepid was last at sea in 1990. That is almost six years ago. The Daily Telegraph recently reported that a major exercise for NATO in May could well be cancelled due to problems getting HMS Fearless to sea because the entire bulkhead had rusted away. A few weeks ago, Defence News quoted a defence source as saying of Intrepid:
"If it is ever possible to get her moving, she could only now be used for transport; certainly not amphibious operations … We continue to pour new wine into old bottles and it is a terrible waste of money".
Mr. Arbuthnot: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech, he would have heard me say that all of that is not true.
Mr. Murphy: I understand that, but I must tell the Minister that there is considerable disagreement and unease—not only on my part, but among Conservative Members who represent coastal constituencies that are involved in these matters—about the replacement of those ships and their seaworthiness. These are important matters because littoral warfare will be the Royal Navy's new role in the coming century.
The United States is exploring what it calls co-operative engagement. It was stated clearly in the debate on the Army that the United Kingdom leads Europe in relation to the allied rapid reaction force. Why cannot we, with our naval history and experience, lead Europe in naval co-operation as well? Why cannot we be the link between the United States and Europe in naval matters? One of the reasons is that the Secretary of State—he has gone now—is no friend to Europe. Surely even he realises that co-operation in Europe and in NATO is the way ahead, but it has been seriously jeopardised by cuts and the lack of a proper long-term plan.
Our Navy must be prepared and resourced for its new role. There must be a proper strategic defence review for the Navy and all the armed forces. As politicians, we must not let the Navy down in this new chapter of its history. Like all hon. Members, I agree with the Minister that the Royal Navy is still viewed with envy across the globe, and that the safety and stability of the British people, if I might paraphrase Kipling, still depends on uniforms that guard us while we sleep.
5.13 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I should like to echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made in opening the debate,

1151
when he expressed the nation's admiration and gratitude to the Royal Navy for its work not only in situations of military danger but in dealing with natural disasters such as those that have occurred in the Caribbean. As I represent a constituency with a considerable number of naval families resident within it, I should add to his congratulations and mention the admiration that one must also have for the families of those who serve in the Royal Navy. The sailor can serve at sea with reasonable confidence and good morale only if he knows that his family understands the responsibilities of his work and recognises the pressures that it places on him.
The Minister mentioned the work of HMS Southampton in the Caribbean. The crew of that ship were involved in extremely important humanitarian operations, but they were not the only ones who were inconvenienced. It had been expected that there would be rest and recreation in Florida during the ship's deployment and the wives, at their own cost, had arranged to visit their loved ones. That all had to be cancelled, however, due to the situation which arose in the Caribbean. It is important to remember the role of the families when we praise the armed forces.
Whenever one speaks about the Royal Navy or the armed forces generally, it is a truism to say that we live in uncertain times. One point on which I agreed with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) was his comment that he felt that we ought to seek stability and certainty, in so far as that is possible in view of the problems with which the armed forces are designed to deal. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his reply, will manage to settle some of the uncertainties that have beset hon. Members on both sides of the House in relation to some of the issues that the Ministry of Defence faces.
My hon. Friends made it clear in earlier interventions just how strongly they feel about the replacements for the aging assault ships. I accept the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement that we shall be able to meet our obligations in the coming exercises. However, no hon. Member can have any doubt that we must develop our amphibious capacity in such a way that we can supplement HMS Ocean with dedicated assault ships. That must be done as soon as possible.
I do not expect the Minister to change his statement about timing, but I ask him—as I asked his predecessor a year ago—to give us an assurance that we are talking about two replacement assault ships for the two existing ships, rather than one ship in addition to the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean. That assurance would be a great comfort to us and a part of the stability that we seek.
I should also like an assurance in relation to the replacement order for the new type 23 frigates. We all know that the companies tendering for the order have been asked to tender on the basis of building one, two or three ships. It does not require any great knowledge of shipbuilding to recognise that if the Navy requires three type 23 frigates it will be cheaper to order three at one time rather than one or two now and one or two more at a later stage after a separate negotiation.
The tender prices that have been placed before the MOD run only to March this year. It is therefore important that we can be assured that the decision will be
1152
taken within, literally, the next few weeks—in February—and that the decision will be to order three frigates. That would give the MOD flexibility to place the orders in a way that deals with the problem of maintaining jobs in the warship-building industry, which the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman raised. That would also help in relation to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) raised about the need to maintain competition in price setting for vessels in this country.
It may be that the sheer size of HMS Ocean, which was a one-off ship, limited the opportunity for competition, but in regard to frigates I remind my hon. Friend that there is capacity on the south coast of England to build ships in steel that would be competitive in price, quality and delivery date. That potential would retain for the Ministry the opportunity to obtain competitive prices for vessels as they are required.
The case for Vosper Thornycroft is unanswerable. That company has seized opportunities in overseas markets year in and year out and is an example to other yards. It should be recognised as a highly successful shipbuilding operation that requires serious consideration when orders are placed for the three frigates.
I said earlier that families are an essential part of the structure of the Royal Navy and help to maintain morale. I should like to comment on a particular group of those serving within the fleet, both at sea and on shore, for whom we should express our admiration and whose career structure should be improved. I am talking about the women who serve within the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will no doubt recall my questions on that matter last year, although I shall not deal with them in detail. He reminded us that 36 Royal Navy ships and five auxiliaries have been converted to include facilities for women, and there are now more than 1,300 berths for female sailors. That provides an opportunity for the Royal Navy to make better use of the skills and qualities of women sailors at sea.
One problem is that the ranks at which women serve at sea are not commensurate with their potential to operate in command positions. My hon. Friend replied to my Questions 108 and 109 at columns 354–55 on 13 March 1995, that no fewer than 97 per cent. of commissioned officers, petty officers and ratings have served at sea. That is not surprising as men join the Navy to go to sea. That is what sailors do. However, only 45 per cent. of women sailors ever been to sea, so 55 per cent. have no service at sea. That is a loss of quality serving sailors at sea because there is still a tendency to see women's duties as administrative and supportive and not at the sharp end of the fleet.
Mr. Soames: I applaud entirely the point that my hon. Friend is making and can reassure him that last week I had the great pleasure of visiting flag officer sea training operations. I spent the day on HMS Montrose, where I had the privilege of watching the first woman qualified senior navigator in the Royal Navy navigate the ship under the most difficult and testing circumstances—and she did a wholly admirable job.
Mr. Griffiths: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. My purpose in raising the matter was to seek exactly such an assurance. However, we should be clear that only

1153
25 per cent. of female sailors at commander rank have ever served at sea, as have 45 per cent. of those at lieutenant commander rank and 50 per cent. of those at sub-lieutenant or midshipman rank. My hon. Friend has made it clear that there is no reason to believe that women are not capable of carrying out command roles at sea.
The way in which women are seen on board ship depends on the rank at which they serve. When young women ratings face what is perhaps not serious harassment, but which may cause problems that they would like to discuss with someone else, they feel less able to complain if the senior female officer aboard the ship is ranked no higher than a sub-lieutenant. If there were senior women officers on board to whom such matters could be referred, any problems could be dealt with quickly without becoming the subject of formal complaints. Indeed, they probably would not occur at all if the circumstances that my hon. Friend described on HMS Montrose were more widespread. We should make every use of the skills and qualities of the women who serve in the Navy.
At present, morale in the fleet is high. When one talks to those serving in the Royal Navy on shore and at sea, there is a feeling that the Navy is performing an important task in carrying out our commitments in Bosnia. It is doing well and is proud of what it is doing. The fleet does not welcome the fact that it is operating in an area where there was warfare, but it welcomes the fact that it is operational, active and doing the job for which it was designed. Those of us who represent naval ports have every reason to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement when he expressed admiration and support for the fleet and its sailors.
5.27 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who made many excellent and pertinent points. I am also pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who made an excellent speech. I join the Minister and others in paying tribute to the Royal Navy and the commitment and loyalty of its service and civilian personnel, who strive to maintain its position as a world leader. However, I wish that the Government would do more to demonstrate their loyalty and commitment to those people.
As has been mentioned, there has been further delay and indecision in the past 12 months. The Government are constantly saying one thing and doing another. Ministers have promised announcements in August, September and November and then before Christmas, but the saga continues. I quote Admiral Sir Benjamin Bathurst's comments about the defence costs study:
"I am conscious, of course, that these changes were not without their downside for some of our people … Many were, and perhaps still are, exposed to turbulence and uncertainty."
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North also made that point.
Mr. Soames: Like the hon. Lady, I have great admiration for Admiral Sir Benjamin Bathurst. In the context of the admiral's wise words, which she quoted. he also said that the storm may be over, but inevitably turbulence—the swell—will continue.
Ms Squire: I thank the Minister for his intervention. I shall quote the admiral again during my speech. In
1154
Rosyth, Devonport, Glasgow, Southampton and many other places, there seems still to be one hell of a swell that is affecting so many people's lives.
I am sure that it will come as no surprise when I say that I plan to devote most of my speech to Rosyth, the dockyards generally and the issues of concern to them. I appreciate, of course, what the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said about Rosyth and Devonport. Unfortunately, however, his remarks did not bring much comfort or certainty for the yards' prospects.
As for the Rosyth naval base, I appreciate that much work still needs to be done to try to ensure a seamless transfer of the personnel, as well as the site and its facilities, to Rosyth 2000. I welcomed the decision when it was made. I appreciate the Minister's efforts and willingness to address the issues, and to meet yet again myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) next week to have a further discussion.
It is my experience, however, and that of the people at the naval base, that others have not been quite so helpful or willing. It seems that the pace of the land agency with responsibilities for defence establishments varies between go slow or stop when it comes to trying to facilitate economic regeneration and progression. I shall be delighted if the agency proves me wrong in the next few weeks.
I pay tribute, however, to many of those who have been involved as the base transfers to become a supportive establishment. I pay tribute, of course, to all the personnel at the base, to the councils involved, to private enterprise and to the Scottish Office. I congratulate them on their efforts. I thank the Minister for once again commending the service and loyalty to their country of all those who have served and are serving at Rosyth naval base.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the men and women who have served at RAF Pitreavie, both in the naval service and in the RAF. The station finally closed its doors this week as its operations were transferred.
Is it still planned to transfer the naval base and its facilities to commercial operations on 1 April? There should be a definite timetable to allow other decisions to be made to facilitate the planning process. I appreciate that there may be continuing difficulties, but surely it should be possible to make enabling arrangements to achieve the seamless transfer that we all know is in the interests of the base.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, the Opposition spokesman, in opposing the dismantling of the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service. I join him also in paying tribute to the reserve forces. I am delighted and honoured that, during the past week, I have been asked to become a vice-president of the Maritime Voluntary Service. I was delighted to accept the honour, and I shall do everything I can to support it.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will the hon. Lady's new office involve service at sea?
Ms Squire: I hope so. I participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the Royal Navy, and found it invaluable. My only qualm is at the number of jackstay transfers that I would be required to undertake. I accept, of course, that it is all good training and experience. Perhaps it is not for me to join the Royal Navy full time but instead to deal with some of the turbulence and uncertainty that this place sometimes introduces.

1155
I repeat my view that the Government are guilty of mismanaging and mishandling the dockyards. Even the National Audit Office has agreed to consider the need for a further report on dockyard matters whenever the Department finally announces its decisions.
The Minister has once again failed to bring any certainty to the two royal dockyards. He has given no guarantees on pensions, redundancies or pay and conditions. He has not said that there will be no changes without agreement. Is he willing to give such guarantees today? If not, will he say when he intends to give them?
There is a growing rumour that the term contract for both dockyards, which is due to end on 1 April, is likely to be extended. Is that the position? If so, how long will the extension be? When does the Minister expect to make a decision on the contract award? When will announcements be made on additional submarine work and an aircraft carrier coming into Rosyth? Are there any impending programme changes for either Rosyth or Devonport? Is the Minister able to be any more specific, rather than saying that an announcement will be made in a few weeks? I have been hearing that phrase throughout my time in this place.
I have concentrated so far on shoreside infrastructure at Rosyth and Devonport. It is not glamorous, but it is vital. That is not my view and mine alone. I shall quote from an article that Admiral Sir Benjamin Bathurst wrote in August 1995 for the Royal United Services Institute. The quotation leads me to make some comments about the wider agenda, including the size of the fleet and forces, the support infrastructure and procurement. The admiral said:
"Successful operations, collaboration and training, particularly when resources are stretched, depend on an adequate shore-side infrastructure to guarantee that we make the most of what we have at sea. Stores and engineering may not be to the public eye the stuff of glamour, but whilst an army may still march on its stomach, a fleet relies on readily available support to remain effective and efficient."
The admiral then referred to service personnel. I have not found morale in the Royal Navy as high as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North has described. Perhaps my outlook has been affected by my proximity to Rosyth naval base, which is about to close, and by not being where most naval personnel are located, but even during my time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, morale often seemed low on board the ships.
The admiral also said:
"uniformed people may appear to be more expensive during the relative calm and tranquillity of peacetime programmes which are planned and structured. But when we have to despatch a force, or repair ships, or replace crews, or sustain an operation, we need that base from which to generate the required support.. the armed forces provide an insurance policy and we must be capable of honouring the obligations for which the public pay the premium."
There is great concern that the continuing reduction of the fleet and service personnel is affecting morale. We are still waiting for the fleet to reach its planned strength of 25 minesweepers, with 35 destroyers and frigates, three carriers and 12 nuclear submarines. The only prospect of a minor reduction in the Navy's commitments will come next year in the final withdrawal from Hong Kong. Hon. Members and Ministers have already mentioned the
1156
Royal Navy's extensive commitments, and evidence shows that, since 1993, the Royal Navy's resources have been stretched in meeting its commitments.
The permanent deployment of a carrier and a number of escorts to the Adriatic contributed to the Royal Navy's withdrawal from a number of NATO exercises, which inevitably impacts on the training and experience available for naval personnel. It also puts increased pressures on service families—a point that the Minister mentioned in his opening speech—who are separated for ever longer periods.
I would welcome the Minister's comments on the Ministry of Defence's directorate of operational capability last year, which said that there were weaknesses in sealift during a paper exercise to see whether Britain could mount an amphibious operation similar to that of the Falklands. All that can affect morale in the Royal Navy and the adequacy of our defence and security cover.
That leads me to the merchant fleet—an issue that has already been raised. I quote from another admiral—Rear-Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, who made a vital point in 1890, in a document entitled, "The Influence of Sea Power on History", in which he said:
"Sea power in the broad sense includes not only the military strength afloat that rules the sea or any part of it by force of arms, but also the peaceful commerce and shipping from which alone a military fleet naturally and healthily springs and on which it securely rests."
I see heads nodding in agreement with that. Yet it is widely believed that there are insufficient merchant ships on the British register to meet all defence contingencies today.
As hon. Members are aware, 92 per cent. of this country's exports, almost all its oil, gas, timber and key imports, and almost half its food, are seaborne. Of the 71 merchant vessels chartered by the MOD since the beginning of 1992 to participate in exercises, only one has been British-registered, and for operations in Bosnia, 23 vessels have been chartered—none of them British.
Mr. Soames: I do not mean to labour the point, but the hon. Lady raises issues that are for the Department of Transport and the Treasury to deal with. So far as the military side is concerned, which is all that we are able to discuss this evening, as I told her hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), what matters is that the services are able to conduct operations efficiently, effectively and promptly, and to that end we go to the Baltic Exchange when it is necessary to charter ships.
The hon. Gentleman said that it was wrong that we should borrow ships from the Americans, but we are grateful to the Americans for their help in providing sealift. It saved us chartering two extra ships. When we go to the Baltic Exchange to charter a ship, if a British ship is available, that is good news. If it is not, we charter what we need for the job, so that we can get the best value for money for the taxpayer. Plainly, it would be pleasant if all the ships that we charter were British, but they are not, and there are good reasons for that.
Ms Squire: I listened to what the Minister said, but we should debate what ships would be available for a planned exercise and our ability to obtain the ships that we would need in a sudden emergency. That is of concern not just to me and other hon. Members, but to the Select Committee on Defence.

1157
I quote now from the Committee's sixth report, produced last year, entitled, "Defence Use of Civilian Transport Assets and Personnel":
"In a continually changing strategic environment where increasing emphasis is placed on the rapid deployment of our Armed Forces overseas the role of civilian transport assets and personnel becomes ever more significant. In our view, the ability of civilian markets to respond in a crisis has for too long been taken for granted; a process of regular and detailed review of all aspects of transport provision is essential before a satisfactory degree of confidence on this front can be established and maintained."
I now deal with procurement. I, too, wish to criticise the Government for the continuing delay in their decision on which of the two yards will get the order for the three frigates. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, 1,100 jobs are at stake at Yarrow on the Clyde. That shipbuilder is saying that it cannot continue to keep its work force unless it knows for definite, not in the next few weeks but now, what the Ministry of Defence decision will be.
I appreciate the points that were made about the hundreds of jobs at risk to Vosper Thornycroft. The Government do not seem to learn from history what happens when we allow our manufacturing base, particularly our shipbuilding and refitting capabilities, to decline. I accept that increasingly we operate on the basis of coalitions with our American and European allies, but we could experience problems if we envisage the threat as purely national.
The Evening Standard spoke eloquently last week about defence procurement in its editorial on the contract for battlefield ambulances being awarded to, I am pleased to say, Land Rover instead of an Austrian firm. What the article said also applies to naval procurement, however.
According to the Evening Standard,
"The British defence industry accounts for 425,000 jobs, or 7 per cent. of the nation's manufacturing workforce. No Government can afford to ignore this. It is absurd in this context to talk of the Government skewing the market: the Government is the market. It is the responsibility of Government to act as steward for the national interest."
I hope that the Minister will heed those comments, and accept that Britain must not abdicate its ability to build its own warships, aircraft and land weaponry. It must not lose out in that regard.
I gather that the Secretary of State cannot be present for most of the debate. I must say, however, that—like, perhaps, some naval personnel and others—I sometimes wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman occasionally needs to be reminded that he is no longer at the Treasury. It strikes me as appropriate to quote a famous verse from "HMS Pinafore". Before hon. Members exit rapidly at the thought of hearing me sing—I admit that I was chucked out of the school choir—let me assure them that I intend simply to recite the verse. Hon. Members may wish to join in.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Go on, sing it.
Ms Squire: No, no; I will not do that, even for my hon. Friend.
The words of the song will be very familiar:
"Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule—
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be Rulers of the Queen's Navee!"
1158
The Royal Navy may sometimes consider that that verse is still an appropriate comment on certain aspects of the present Government.
I began by mentioning the defence costs study, and ended by quoting from "HMS Pinafore". In between, I have tried to make some pertinent points about the difficulties currently facing the Royal Navy, its personnel and its infrastructure. If I had been able to read as much as I would have wished, I could have said much more about global maritime strategy; but I shall conclude by drawing the Government's attention to some points made in a book that landed on my desk recently, entitled "The Fundamentals of British Maritime Doctrine".
Let me quote from the afterword:
"The Royal Navy and Royal Marines are accustomed to the mayhem of world events, but the Naval Service of today puts to sea in a particularly confused world, in which security problems are not amenable to clear-cut solutions … In this environment positive forces must be united if there is to be progress … British forces must not only be able to operate closely with Allies and friends, but must be seminal in enhancing the capability of multinational forces. Clarity of thought and expression is essential in this environment. Without it, planning will be diffuse and execution muddled."
I hope that, in the next 12 months, the Government's approach and their support for the Royal Navy will feature clarity, careful planning and clear decision making.
5.53 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), as it was a pleasure to hear her, in such expansive form, deliver such an interesting speech. She quoted from "HMS Pinafore"; I should like to quote from "The Mikado"—the song of the Lord High Executioner, who had a "little list" of people whom he wished to execute. He sang:
"I've got a little list—I've got a little list".
One of the people on the list was
"The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own."
Sometimes, in this honourable House, people are not enthusiastic enough about praising their own country. However, they certainly do not include my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who, in a forthright intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) an hour or so ago, robustly praised the British armed services—the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—for their splendid achievements in Bosnia, as did my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. That is what I like to hear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who has just left the Chamber, said that the morale of the British armed services—including the Royal Navy—was high, and I believe that to be so. Bosnia, however, illustrates the fact that war has certainly not ended in the world for good. We can think of at least four examples in the past 15 years that have involved the British services, including the Royal Navy: Bosnia, the Falkland Islands, Kuwait and, of course, Northern Ireland. In that context, I include the Royal Marines in the Royal Navy.
That Britain should have had to be involved in armed conflicts of international significance four times in the past 15 years shows that human nature has not changed. Throughout human history, nations have attacked one

1159
another, and it would be absurdly arrogant and ridiculously optimistic for anyone to assume that human nature has somehow changed for the better—that we shall be immune from that risk either in the next few years or in the next century. I hope and trust that our Government, and the present Parliament and its successors, will always be vigilant in upholding British defences, and that we shall never relax our guard. It would be extremely dangerous to give way to that temptation, thus increasing the risk to our country.
I was brought up with the Royal Navy. I hope that the House will not mind my saying something personal in that way. My father was in the Navy for 40 years as a regular naval officer; in the second world war he was a destroyer captain—much decorated, I am proud to say: he won a DSO and two DSCs. After the war, he was on the staff of the Royal Naval college in Greenwich, where he was an instructor in naval tactics and naval strategy before going to do the same for the Indians in India. That marked the beginning of my interest in India.
I was sent into the Royal Navy as a cadet at the Royal Naval college in Dartmouth when I was 13. I had been in and out of the Navy twice by the time I was 20. At 17, I asked to leave; they heaved a sigh of relief, but I went back in to do national service within eight months, and served as a midshipman on HMS Glasgow, the flagship of the Mediterranean fleet and sister ship of the Belfast town class cruiser, now moored on the Thames. The commander-in-chief was Lord Mountbatten, a remarkable man who ought to be honoured every year in this country and never forgotten for his splendid gifts and achievements.
I remember the words that were carved in enormous stone letters at Dartmouth:
"It is on the Navy, under good providence of God, that our wealth, prosperity and peace depend."
That was true then, and it is true today. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West pointed out, a large proportion of our food supplies and materials, and of our exports, still travel by sea. The Royal Navy remains absolutely essential.
As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West told stories about two admirals, I hope that hon. Members will not mind if I tell a story about a third, Admiral Sir James Somerville, who was commander-in-chief of the British naval force in Gibraltar during the second world war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North referred to the women in the Royal Navy who are the successors of the Wrens—the Women's Royal Naval Service. During the second world war, the chief officer of the Wrens in Gibraltar had the title of Chief Officer Wrens, the abbreviation for which was COW, which she did not like. She applied to Admiral Sir James Somerville for her title to be changed, and he sent a signal around the fleet saying, "Chief Officer Wrens will in future be known as Senior Office Wrens." He then invited her to dinner and they were great friends thereafter.
The hon. Member for Torfaen was kind enough to predict that I would refer to service bands and the Royal Marine bands. I am happy to reassure him that I intend to do exactly that. The performances of the Royal Marine bands are extremely fine. They have recently had to leave Deal, and although I can understand how people at Deal
1160
feel, the cost of a whopping great Victorian barracks became impossible to sustain. They have moved, for the time being at least, to Portsmouth.
When the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was speaking in the debate on the Army last month, I intervened and referred to the training of Army bands at the Royal Military school of music at Kneller Hall in my constituency. Those Army bands are without exception the envy of the entire world and I am very proud of the fact that they are trained in Twickenham.
The number of Army bands has fallen with reduced defence expenditure, as have the number of Royal Marine bands, and once again there is talk of a joint services school of music. There is some surplus capacity at Kneller Hall, where a new bandstand is under construction, which—I hope—is a mark of confidence in the future.
Whatever happens to the Royal Marine bands—I would not trespass on the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North, although I do not know how permanent the arrangements are—and if ever the Government decide on a joint services school of music, the Royal Marine bands would be most warmly welcomed in Twickenham, where they could train alongside the Army bands at Kneller Hall. I am certain that the technical and traditional differences in the interpretation of music and in the instruction on the different forms of phrasing required by the Royal Marines would be fully respected.
I shall now refer to the preservation of historic warships. I declare an interest as an unpaid director of the Warship Preservation Trust, which was set up by our former colleague, Sir Philip Goodhart. He perceived that future generations—perhaps well into the 21st century—would be able easily to see 18th to 19th-century warships such as HMS Victory, and 19th-century warships such as HMS Warrior, but that in 100 years, unless somebody did something about it, nobody would be able to see 20th-century warships such as those that fought in the second world war.
Sir Philip knew that the Ministry of Defence was unable to find the substantial sums needed to pay for preservation and that the National Art Collections Fund, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and such bodies were crammed full of people who cared passionately about paintings, sculptures and old buildings, but were not very naval-minded and not particularly interested in finding large sums to preserve warships. He therefore decided to set up the trust, and already it has two ships—a submarine from the second world war and an old frigate that fought in the Falkland Islands 15 years ago, which is now out of date.
Although, as we are all aware, the Belfast is moored in the Thames where people can see it, one wants a complete range of warships. Nobody questions the preservation of military aircraft for educational purposes, whether at Duxford, Hendon, the Imperial War museum or the Science museum. Aircraft tend to be rather smaller than ships, however, so it is rather a larger undertaking to preserve an old ship and stop it rusting and falling to pieces.
The national lottery bodies should take an interest in the matter. The National Heritage Select Committee, on which I serve, is shortly to embark on a review of the structure of the national lottery and the way in which its funds are allocated, and I very much hope that it considers proposing a structure to make it possible for national lottery funds to be used for the preservation of warships.

1161
The same is true of that splendid, beautiful and magnificent ship the royal yacht Britannia, which was the subject of an Adjournment debate at the end of 1994, to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replied. He paid tribute to that magnificent ship, not only for its royal and ceremonial duties, but for its excellent record of promoting British trade abroad.
If, however, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister set out, Britannia eventually has to be withdrawn from service—which many of us for sentimental and other reasons would greatly regret—it would be unthinkable to sell it to the Americans or any other worthy people in different parts of the world and not retain it in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Soames: There is absolutely no question of Britannia being sold abroad. There is no question at all of such a thing ever happening. As my hon. Friend rightly says, that would be entirely unthinkable.
Mr. Jessel: I am very glad to receive my hon. Friend's firm, clear and definite assurance, which I hope will be widely reported. I am certain that the great majority of people will fully back that decision.
The right place for Britannia is either on the River Thames or in Portsmouth; she would fit in well in either place. Portsmouth dockyard has received a big award from the millennium fund and is being built up as the prime naval heritage centre in the United Kingdom. I do not know, however, whether there would be room to moor Britannia there and put her on permanent public exhibition, so that people could either board her or see her from the quay.
Other right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the Royal Naval college in Greenwich. I see that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is in his place and I would not be surprised if he were to catch the Speaker's eye. Greenwich college is probably one of the 20 or 30 most important heritage buildings in the United Kingdom. It is a marvellous building, which is why I was so very glad to be told by the Secretary of State for Defence that a committee of experts—I do not know whether the name of the chairman has been published, so I better not mention it—and distinguished people with great interest in heritage has been established to study what is to be done, and to ensure that the building is used in a way that will preserve permanently its quality and make its future worthy of its distinguished naval past.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman rightly expressed anxiety about the future of the royal yacht Britannia, and received a categorical assurance from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that there was no question of it being sold to an overseas buyer. I hope, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees, that we may hear a similar categorical assurance that there is no question of the Royal Naval college being disposed of on lease to an overseas organisation.
Mr. Jessel: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view on that matter. Of course, there is one slight difference between Britannia and the Royal Naval college. If Britannia were sold, she could be towed away, or could travel under her own steam to a destination abroad. But it would not be physically possible to move the Royal Naval college building without it falling apart. But I, too, hope that the building will be run by British people.
1162
The word "lease" has been mentioned, but it would be a 150-year lease. I know that a lease is not the same as the freehold, which we are told will remain permanently in the hands of the Government of the United Kingdom. But if someone buys a house on a 150-year lease, he thinks that it belongs to him. Although there are some limits on what he can do to it structurally, he does feel as if it were his. I hope that that will be borne in mind by the distinguished panel of experts who will consider that important matter.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for listening to me. Now I shall sit down.
6.11 pm
Sir Russell Johnston: I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) will pardon me if I do not follow directly his lively, entertaining, personalised but very positive speech.
However, old ship preservation is historically important. For example, I often think of the old battleship Warspite, which had such a remarkable record, from Jutland through Matapan to D day, but ended up on the rocks of Prussia cove en route to the breakers. It would be something for future generations if such a ship had been preserved—but I am afraid that people were not quite as forward looking in those times as they have, I hope, become more recently.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), our defence spokesman, apologises for not being present. I am but a humble substitute.
Mr. Soames: No, no.
Sir Russell Johnston: Very humble, I assure the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, I must even leave before the conclusion of the debate, for which I apologise. I shall not delay the House for long, but there are a few issues that I want to raise briefly, either on our own account or in support of what has already been said.
The overriding factor is strength in relation to commitment or projected commitment. There is clear concern about that. But it is not something on which we should spend all our time criticising the Government; I should have thought that the concern was shared throughout the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want our Navy to be effective, and to continue to be so.
In this debate it has become the fashion, set by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), to quote admirals. Not wishing to be unfashionable, I shall quote Admiral Sir Jock Slater, the First Sea Lord, on strength in relation to commitment:
"The reality is that if you reduce the number of frigates, destroyers and submarines, and the number of small ships as we are doing, and you maintain as we are doing, the number of tasks, then inevitably the stresses and strains on the fleet are greater … Therefore the opportunities for maintenance are less, for leave and recreation are less, the opportunities for training at a higher level are not so great".
The First Sea Lord does not say such things for fun. The Minister should recognise that there is considerable concern on that subject.
As the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said—I agreed with a great deal of his speech—we still have commitments in the Caribbean, the middle east, the Gulf

1163
and Hong Kong, although the latter will go next year. There is also the Adriatic. I associate myself with what has already been said in praise of the work of the Navy there, but that, too, will probably go if the Dayton accord works. It is a bit early to say whether it will; the situation is certainly difficult.
Such exercises and demands on our naval resources will almost certainly be repeated elsewhere. The Mediterranean alone is clearly an area of great potential instability, from the Aegean right along the north African coast. Egypt is in potential turmoil, we know about Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and, moving up through Tunisia, Algeria is still under tremendous stress. The instability continues right up to the point where the Mediterranean joins the Atlantic at Gibraltar.
The likelihood of incidents of tension arising is great, not only in the Mediterranean but in the Black sea, another area containing all sorts of risks of tension and conflict. In certain circumstances, NATO or the United Nations could be involved. We need to be prepared for such events, and for our participation in them. For example, I am sure that the Minister has registered the fact that the newly completed Russian aircraft carrier made its first voyage through the Mediterranean, thus symbolically reasserting Russia's importance in that area.
In the background, as the hon. Members for Torfaen and for Dunfermline, West have said, is the great fall, from 690 to 556 in the past decade, in the number of merchant ships on the British register available for defence purposes. That is a matter for concern.
When one says that something is a matter for concern, people usually ask, "What would you do about it?" It is a fair question—and I do not know whether there is anything much that we can do about it, because of the heavy decline in our shipbuilding capacity. However, I often wonder whether there is more that not only we but other like-minded countries could do to ensure that registrations take place with responsible people, rather than with countries such as Panama. I do not know whether the Government exert any pressure in that direction.
Linked to that is the question of amphibious capacity, which has already been more than adequately debated. What will HMS Fearless's life be after it completes its upgrade? How long will it last? The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) asked that question, and also asked whether there would be another as well as HMS Ocean. I cannot say that we heard an answer.
I should like to say a word about the nuclear deterrent. The Minister knows that the Liberal Democrats accept a minimum deterrent, which means—let us be clear about it—no more missiles, and no more warheads than Polaris now has.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement attacked the Labour party as being in favour of disarmament. I am sure that the Labour party can most effectively speak for itself, but, speaking for myself, I see nothing dishonourable in seeking disarmament—quite the contrary. One can say that we require an effective, efficient defence system too; those two things do not necessarily contradict each other.
Mr. Llew Smith: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I posed the Minister, which he failed to
1164
answer? If nuclear weapons were a part of our defence and if the hon. Gentleman were in a position of power, would he, if the crunch came, be willing to press the button to start off those nuclear weapons? If he did, could he anticipate some of the devastation that they would inflict on the environment and on the people of this planet?
Sir Russell Johnston: I should prefer not to embark on a long speculation on the theology of deterrence.
Mr. Smith: It is not a matter of theology.
Sir Russell Johnston: It is very much the theology of deterrence, because the whole theory is that it would not be used. As the Minister said, it worked vis-à-vis the Soviet Union when it was in existence. Nowadays, there is another form of deterrent—the French idea of force de frappe. In other words, if China or another country were to develop weapons, the French could say, "We cannot defeat you, but we will injure you. So great a threat of injury exists from us that you will not attack us."
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that nuclear weapons are a deterrent. But if we do not use the nuclear weapons, there is surely something of a contradiction. If the weapons are a deterrent, by definition one must be willing to use them. Otherwise, they are no longer a deterrent.
Sir Russell Johnston: I repeat what I said—the matter does get theological. I know perfectly well that there is a contradiction, but one prays that one will never have to use those weapons. I shall not go beyond that.
The Minister may recall that, at the beginning of the 1980s, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Teviotdale—
Mr. Soames: Lauderdale.
Sir Russell Johnston: I stand corrected. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) went to France with the late and beloved Dr. David Owen to talk about nuclear co-operation with the French. There have been proponents of such an approach on both sides of the channel. I remember listening at length to the then French Minister of Defence, Mr. Chevènement, making a long and extremely enthusiastic speech to the Defence Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union. His great enthusiasm, however, was not matched by his clarity. He talked about the need not only for the British and French to co-operate, but for a European deterrent to evolve. He did not say how that could be done. Will the Minister say something about the extent to which co-operation with the French—which, after all, has worked extremely well in Bosnia—is advancing in regard to the relationship between the independent nuclear deterrent and the force de frappe?
At business questions, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) raised the issue of fisheries protection—a matter that comes up time and again. I often wonder whether we should have greater collaboration within the EU in respect of fisheries protection. I feel strongly that it makes sense for EU member states—which, after all, frame the regulations of the common fisheries policy—to work together in terms of protection.

1165
The Minister might be horrified at this suggestion, but I think that ships crewed from more than one country—English and Spaniards, for example, or Scots and Danes—would improve relations, and might avoid or reduce the likelihood of exaggerated confrontations.
Mr. Soames: That might be taking it a little far. I know, however, that the hon. Gentleman and most hon. Members would approve of the fact that the Royal Navy trains and operates day after day with navies from all over the world. The Navy enjoys a most intimate relationship with a number of European navies, with which we co-operate closely. German ships, for example, are training at the moment under the flag officer sea training. The French come to train with us, and we have been working closely with the Spanish navy on fishery protection. There is a most intimate relationship between all seafarers, but particularly between navies which, by and large, are friends.
Sir Russell Johnston: I thank the Minister.
Finally, I wish to refer to three "single issues". First, we welcome the establishment of the naval support command, which brings together various support activities. However, the decision to base the NSC partly in Bath and partly at the new Ministry of Defence base at Abbey Wood in north Bristol has to be questioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has vigorously pursued the matter, and he remains convinced that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money could be wasted if the MOD continues to reject the private finance initiative that has been proposed by my hon. Friend, the local councils and the chamber of commerce in Bath.
Mr. Soames: It is a load of balls.
Sir Russell Johnston: That may not be a parliamentary expression. Chambers of commerce, as we know, have a good attitude to the Government. I wonder what their response to that remark will be when it goes on the record.
Secondly, I agree entirely with what the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said about the Royal Naval college. We want there to be, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Twickenham, a worthy use of the college.
Thirdly, I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West said so clearly on Rosyth and Devonport.
Life is different now, as has been said, but standards in the Navy remain admirably high. That has been shown in the quality of the Navy's contribution in the Falklands, the Gulf and—more recently—in the Adriatic. It has shown itself to be a formidable fighting force. We must face up to the fact, however, that we do not have the same resources that we once had. The future will inevitably see more and more co-operation, much of which—as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said—is being done within the EU and NATO. I should perhaps have liked to hear a little more about that from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement than I did.
6.26 pm
Mr. David Martin: While agreeing with much of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), including
1166
his remarks about new frigates being built by Vosper Thornycroft and the importance of keeping competition in that market, I wish to concentrate today on the importance of the Government making a decision sooner rather than later on the future of the royal yacht Britannia, a subject that has been mentioned several times in the debate. Britannia is due to be decommissioned in the summer of next year, and I want the Government to propose a sensible plan for her successor.
Any schemes must be considered with particular sensitivity to the use of taxpayers' money. I realise all too well, as do Ministers, that it may seem untimely to consider royal yachts at a time when some members of the royal family are attracting unwelcome publicity—I put it no higher than that—for the monarchy. In that respect, as one incident succeeds another, I still believe that to the three constitutional rights which Bagehot assigned to the sovereign—the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn—should be added the right to despair. Putting all that aside, however, the Government cannot and must not put off a balanced debate and a decision as to the fate of Britannia and what to do about her successor.
First, natural and understandable emotions, which I share, are raised when the fate of Britannia is considered, not least in her home base of Portsmouth, where she is the second oldest ship in commission—HMS Victory being the oldest, of course, although it is no longer seagoing. Since her arrival on the scene in the early 1950s, Britannia has been supremely served by many dedicated crews. She remains a standard bearer of excellence in the Royal Navy and a potent symbol of British nationality and sovereignty. The same was true, of course, of her predecessor—the Victoria and Albert which, after being stripped out, was scuttled. I do not advocate that fate for Britannia.
Two other options are open. First, appropriate fittings could be removed and the ship sold so that the MOD and the taxpayer get a proper return on the disposal. I do not advocate that she should be sold abroad, however, and I was relieved at what my hon. Friend the Minister said about that.
The second option is to give Britannia to one of the cities or organisations which are keen to offer her a home—including Portsmouth—with a one-off endowment of taxpayers' money, or one extracted from national lottery funds. According to those who advocate that course, she could be permanently moored and preserved as a tourist attraction or even converted into a hotel or conference centre. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and others who support variations of that scheme, that option is fanciful and not sufficiently thought through, irrespective of how many consultants and reports are considered, and neither taxpayers' nor ratepayers' money should be used for that purpose.
Portsmouth has already been assigned £40 million of lottery funds through the Millennium Commission to help in the regeneration of a substantial part of the harbour. To found any scheme to preserve Britannia on the hope or expectation of more lottery funds is to emulate Oliver Twist—with, I suspect, the same result. However fascinating Britannia may be, especially at first, she will never be a viable tourist or commercial attraction. She

1167
would not have the unique attractions of HMS Victory, which is expensive enough to maintain already, or those of the Mary Rose museum or HMS Warrior.
Conversion to a hotel would be prohibitively expensive, not least because of the asbestos and other materials used in Britannia's construction in the 1950s. Whoever took her on as a tourist attraction, quite apart from the enormous initial capital costs, would never be free of expense and subsidy. Should it be Portsmouth, I foresee that, sooner or later, large and continuing sums of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money, in cash and in kind, would be required to berth, maintain and run her. However emotionally attractive, such a plan is not likely to be given a fair wind by the MOD or by Ministers; nor would I recommend or press it. I favour removing appropriate fittings and selling her, though not abroad, so that the taxpayer gets a proper return on the disposal.
The most exciting and important consideration is that of a modern replacement for Britannia—just as, at the beginning of the present reign, she replaced her predecessor the Victoria and Albert. I have no doubt that there ought to be a successor ship and that it should be based in Portsmouth. Would anyone expect me to say anything else? She could inherit being the symbol of British nationality and sovereignty, and the international prestige, and continue helping to win significant export orders and being the unique endorsement of Britain's role and position in the international community.
An imaginative plan which shows great vision is being seriously prepared by the Cadland consortium. It would result in a ship 370 ft long, with a beam of 48 ft—I am no expert, but I will give some of the details—a multi-engined propulsion system capable of 20 knots and a classic three-masted rig. She would have a service life of 75 years and require a permanent crew of 40 rather than the 240 required on Britannia.
The plan does not envisage either taxpayers' money or lottery money to construct the ship. Income to maintain and run her would be generated from sail training and from commercial, Government and royal duties. She would successfully combine four main roles. First, she would fulfil royal state duties as at present. Secondly, she would have the capacity for 180 Queen's cadets from Britain and Commonwealth countries, which would add a social and cultural dimension, combined with sail training. Thirdly, the design and equipment would demonstrate the highest levels of British technology, engineering standards and design quality. Fourthly, public participation and access would be encouraged. Her exhibition facilities would offer an unrivalled platform for overseas trade promotion and continue Britannia's role in generating wealth for Britain.
Without going into further and unnecessary details, I believe that the plan combines vision and realism in equal measure. However, without a decision soon about the fate of Britannia and the Government's intentions as to a successor, such plans cannot be properly and publicly promoted with a fair chance of success, especially as the lead-in time is at least two years and probably more. I want a ministerial decision as soon as possible so that we can release the enterprise and imagination of the many people who are willing and keen to contribute to British
1168
achievement and naval excellence for the 21st century, with which Portsmouth will continue to be proud to be associated.
6.35 pm
Mr. John Denham: I should like to follow the remarks of several hon. Members about the award of the order for type 23 frigates, and especially the interest of Vosper Thornycroft in that delayed—and now urgent—decision. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement knows of my strong constituency interest. The shipyard is on the edge of my constituency and many of my constituents are employed there. I am grateful to him for the time that he gave me and some of my colleagues a few weeks ago to discuss the case for Vosper Thornycroft.
Hon. Members who have visited Vosper Thornycroft in recent years include members of Labour's defence team and those with an interest in training policy, who are interested in its innovative approach to work force training. They will have been enormously impressed by the quality of the company, its management and work force. It is well managed, has a committed work force and is committed to investment, both in capital equipment and in the work force. Although, by the nature of the business, it is not always possible to avoid job losses, the company has had an excellent record of retaining and retraining the work force wherever possible.
It is a matter of deep regret that a cloud of uncertainty hung over the company, my constituency and the rest of Southampton over Christmas and the new year. People had been led to believe that the decision on the order would be made before Christmas. Unfortunately, even today, we have had no date for the decision to be made. The practical consequences of the delay are already serious. The work force was reduced by more than 100 before Christmas. Those were not compulsory redundancies, but the release of contract workers. Nevertheless, contract jobs are still jobs to the people who were doing them and who no longer have the chance to do them. Further delay would make forward planning for the company even more difficult. If no decision was made and no work on the contract allocated to Vosper Thornycroft, employment would fall by a further 500 in the next year alone.
In parliamentary answers recently, the Minister has said that the order will be for up to three frigates. He said earlier that he hopes to take a decision within a few weeks. If he has not yet decided how many he wants, it will be a rushed job for those who have to do the work. I would have hoped that, by this stage, he could have told us how many frigates the Royal Navy requires, as a precursor to deciding who is to build them. I hope that he will give an absolute commitment that there is no question of the decision being delayed beyond the date of the current tendering period in March. It must not be delayed into a period of re-tendering and further indecision. That would be unacceptable to all those who are waiting on that decision. I hope that that commitment and perhaps a clear sign of the decision date and the number of vessels will be forthcoming. Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), I hope that the number will be three.
Any hon. Member would expect me to have a constituency interest in my local shipyard, but I genuinely believe that in this case my constituency interest and the

1169
interest of the Southampton area coincide precisely with the national interest. The continued success of Vosper Thornycroft is vital for two reasons. First, it is vital to the future procurement policies of the Royal Navy, particularly the Royal Navy's ability to seek competitive tendering for new vessels in the future. Secondly, the awarding of the contract to Vosper Thornycroft is vital to sustain the company's remarkable export success in recent years.
Those two key issues—being able to supply the Royal Navy and being successful in export markets—come together in the awarding of the contract for the type 23 frigate. Vosper Thornycroft's ability to provide competition for Royal Navy orders depends, in practice, on the shipyard continuing to win the export orders which have sustained the company through much of the recent past. In turn—and this is crucial—export success depends on being able to show that the Royal Navy has confidence in the company by placing orders in it. The awarding of the type 23 frigate contract can secure both the future of competition in the awarding of contracts and Vosper Thornycroft's continued success in the export markets. The two issues cannot sensibly be separated. Over the next two years, Vosper Thornycroft will deliver six steel vessels—orders which were won on the back of previous steel shipbuilding for the Royal Navy.
What is the current position? One example that I have been given is that Vosper Thornycroft recently lost a valuable export contract for Brunei to GEC. In the company's view, a critical factor was the absence of a recent Royal Navy endorsement of Vosper Thornycroft as a supplier of steel ships. In that case, the competition was within the United Kingdom and the contract was perhaps not so significant in terms of the national interest, but there are many export markets in which Vosper Thornycroft is the sole UK competitor. If Vosper Thornycroft does not win those orders, they will not go to another British shipyard: they will go to naval shipbuilders in other parts of the world. That should be a serious consideration for the Minister.
The Minister placed weight on the NAPNOC—no acceptable price no contract—procedure, but there is scepticism on both sides of the House about the ability of that procedure to provide competitive prices. If Vosper Thornycroft suffers in the future, not only will the Royal Navy be dependent on that approach to contracting, but the country will lose Vosper Thornycroft's export ability.
In the future, there are longer-term plans for 12 common new generation frigates. It is therefore reasonable to ask the following question. Does the Minister believe that a future Navy Minister would be able to achieve the sort of savings—about one third over the life of the type 23 class of frigate—if at that time there were only one company capable of supplying all those vessels and thus one sole supplier with which the Government of the day had to negotiate? I do not believe that it would be credible to follow the NAPNOC procedure to its ultimate extent and suggest that the Royal Navy would forgo vessels that it needed because it was unable to get the price that it wanted.
I hope that I have summarised the case for placing the orders with Vosper Thornycroft. Of course, that is one of my key constituency interests, and other right hon. and hon. Members have other constituency interests. However, I believe that placing the orders with Vosper Thornycroft is in the national interest, the Royal Navy's
1170
interest and the company's interest in contributing to the United Kingdom's export record. My constituents would be disappointed if the orders were not placed with Vosper Thornycroft, but they would be doubly bitter if they felt that the long-term interests of the Royal Navy and the United Kingdom's economy were also to be sacrificed.
6.44 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: I apologise to the House for not having been here earlier—I warned that I would not be able to be here. Hon. Members have already spoken about their constituency interests. Mid-Staffordshire is nowhere near the sea, but I speak in the national interest.
Before I became a Member of Parliament I was occupied in exporting around the world. I have been able to watch the debate on television and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about the importance of the Royal Navy, not only in terms of the defence of the realm but as a means to promote British exports. Having travelled throughout the world, particularly in the United States, I find it interesting to note the modernity of the Royal Navy. Many of the vessels in the US navy, although larger than ours, date back to the Korean war. It is a credit to the Ministry of Defence and to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that the Royal Navy is not only lean but modern and sleek.
We have also been correct, if not always politically correct, to maintain our nuclear deterrent. It is an unfortunate fact that the genie of how to develop nuclear weapons, once let out of the bottle, cannot easily be put back inside it. Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, we should never forget that the Russian Federation, although an ally, still has nuclear weapons. Sadly, nuclear proliferation has meant that there are a growing number of nations around the world which, even though they do not possess nuclear weapons, certainly have the ability to make them and, perhaps more important, to deliver them.
Deterrence does work: we have seen that in Israel over the Gulf war. The fact that it was known that Israel had nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them was the sole reason why Scuds, which could have been armed with the means of mass annihilation, were not aimed at the state of Israel. That is a good example of how nuclear deterrence works. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scuds were."] It is typical of the Labour party to argue that it does not believe that nuclear deterrence works; it does work. I would argue that the reason we have not had a nuclear war is—
Mr. Jamie Cann: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to mislead the House, but Scuds were launched at Israel by Iraq in the Gulf war.
Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. [Interruption.] I apologise to Opposition Members, who are now making fun of my voice—I am on Tyrozets because I have a sore throat. I said that Scuds were aimed at Israel; I said that they were not armed. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) may like to check the record tomorrow. Scuds were aimed at Israel, but they were not armed because Israel had a nuclear deterrent. It is all very well for Opposition Members to scoff and wave their Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament credentials, but I believe that our Government are right to maintain their nuclear deterrent.

1171
It is not only the nuclear deterrent that is important; it is also important that we have an up-to-date, modern Navy. We already have 13 new type 23 frigates. The UK is committed to the procurement of a common new generation frigate known as Project Horizon. It would have been so easy, with the Russian Federation now our ally, to say that we would make massive cuts in the Royal Navy. France has already decided on a 20 per cent. slash in its defence forces. In common with other countries, we are deriving benefit—a peace dividend—but we are doing so in a responsible way that still secures our global role in the world. On that I commend my hon. Friends the Ministers, who have not taken the easy option but have ensured that the Royal Navy continues to be a means to defend the state and promote our global interests worldwide.
6.49 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: It was interesting to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). May I correct him on one matter? He said that the Scud missiles were not armed. I should think that quite a few people in Israel were wondering what went bang and killed a large number of people in that country.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has had long enough.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this Navy debate. You will not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I want to mention the dockyard, the contracts and Trident, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire). As usual, I intend to discuss matters that concern naval personnel, because there are many naval personnel, families and wives in my constituency and because the happiness and contentment of the families are essential to the effectiveness of those on the front line.
Plymouth has a long, proud association with the Navy, in a military setting and in a civilian one. We have the royal naval dockyard, the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy. Until recently, we had the Royal Air Force.
We have the 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, which this year celebrates its centenary in the Citadel in Plymouth. With the leave of the House, I wish to read a resolution that came before Plymouth city council this week:
"in appreciation of the splendid traditions of the 29th Commando Regiment Royal Artillery and as an expression of the admiration of the Citizens of Plymouth for its great and glorious achievements in the Service of this Country and of its long and historic association with the City, the Council do confer upon the Regiment the honorary freedom of the City of Plymouth".
I am pleased to say that the resolution received cross-party—indeed, unanimous—support at the meeting of Plymouth city council on 29 January 1996. I hope that the Royal Artillery commandos will serve in Plymouth for another 100 years.
I congratulate the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in connection with Manadon college. He knows that I have made many representations to him, as have
1172
other hon. Members from the Plymouth area from other parties, and I am pleased that we managed to set up the working party that considered the future use of Manadon college.
We nearly succeeded in persuading the university of Plymouth to take the college over. Sadly, that plan has fallen through, but I hope that some other single user will take over the 100 acre site, with all its wonderful facilities. We should be careful not to strip out the remaining assets. Much of the valuable equipment is probably worth millions of pounds as it stands on site, but if it is sold for scrap or auctioned, it will fetch an amount much less than its real value to a future user.
Nearly two and a half years ago, I sat in the Chamber—in almost the position in which I sit today—with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West, and we heard the announcement about the Trident refit contract. I was proud to listen to my hon. Friend, who made an excellent speech tonight. Many of us would suppose that my hon. Friend and I would have competed over those matters, but I am sure that she will confirm that we have never done so, and nor have the trade unions, the wider work force or the people of the two areas. We have been united in the wish to do the best for people who work in our dockyards and for the Royal Navy. We are united in something else: we believe that there is a purpose in having two dockyards in the country to carry out work for the Royal Navy. I praise my hon. Friend, who has been a consistent and dogged advocate of her area.
Two and a half years have elapsed since we sat in the Chamber in June 1993, when the previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), made the announcement, but the contract has not been signed. In his opening remarks, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, yet again, that it would happen in a few weeks. It is rather like Billy Bunter's postal order—it is just about to arrive but it never seems to do so. For more than two years, hon. Members have been told that the announcement would be made in a few weeks. I hope that, when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replies to the debate, he will confirm that it will be a few weeks and tell us the date—the end of February or the end of March, perhaps—by which the contract will be signed.
In Devonport, the period of uncertainty has been further muddied by the spectre of privatisation. The costs incurred leading up to privatisation were £7.2 million. They included consultants' fees, estate agents' fees and lawyers' fees for telling Babcock International Group and Devonport Management Ltd. what they already knew about the site that they were occupying, because they were the only bidders for the two dockyard contracts. As millions of pounds have gone to City accountants, they have undermined the security of the people who have given long, loyal service in the dockyards. That uncertainty and delay have almost certainly delayed the first Trident refit contract, which was intended to start in 1999 but is unlikely to do so before the year 2000.
We had hoped that in 1999 at least the future of people currently working in the dockyard would be secure. Instead, because of the uncertainty, partly because of the lateness in the arrival and signing of the contract and partly because of privatisation, we have short-termism, further lay-offs and further redundancies in the work force. That undermines the dockyard's effectiveness to carry out future work.

1173
In the short term, there has not been the allocation of ships that is necessary to ensure that the work force are maintained at a strategic level to do that work in future.
The Gulf war and the Falklands war were mentioned. At the time of both those wars, I saw my constituents working 24 hours a day to refit ships. I saw the Canberra come in. Men and women worked hour after hour to get ships ready to travel to the Falklands. We could not achieve that now. Those skills have gone—the people have gone and the capacity in the yard has gone. If we make further cuts, our capacity to do other types of work will go. It is vital that we maintain the basis of the work force to meet the strategic requirements of the Royal Navy and the country.
Once those vital skills are lost or those who have them do not practise them for a time, they are lost for ever; in the past few years, we have ceased taking young people into the dockyard to train them to carry out the work in future years. It is the first time this century that we have stopped training young people.
Privatisation has caused further problems. Has privatisation caused the price of the Trident contract to increase? Under privatisation, the contractor will be responsible for the whole contract, and costs of unforeseen changes will be met not by the Ministry of Defence but by the contractor. I wonder how much extra that will cost the taxpayer.
When, or if, the dockyards are privatised, it is intended that Brown and Root, which is essentially an American company, whose merits I shall not discuss, will have the majority shareholding in Devonport. Perhaps the most important question that we must ask tonight is, what guarantees will the Government give that Brown and Root could not be taken over by a hostile company, perhaps from a hostile country? The Minister must give that answer tonight before he makes any announcement about further plans for privatisation. South Western Electricity plc has been taken over by an American company, and the local people who own shares have had them compulsorily purchased by the Americans; so we have experience of those matters in the locality.
Mr. Arbuthnot: The Ministry of Defence will retain a special share that will give us the power to stop anything that would damage our security.
Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the Minister. I have asked that question many times before and that reassurance has never been given. Can he also tell us whether that golden share will guarantee the redundancy arrangements, pay and terms and conditions that the long-serving and loyal work force have enjoyed for many years? That is a question to which the people in my constituency, many of whom have given 20, 30 or more years of service, want a reply.
I received a letter today from one of my constituents, a man in his 50s, who has worked in the dockyard since he was an apprentice. He said that he did not choose to leave the Ministry of Defence, and he wants to know what will happen to the contract of employment that he signed many years ago.
Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend mentioned the record of Brown and Root. Would he care to comment on its management of the nuclear plant in Texas and the repercussions of that management?
Mr. Jamieson: I think that it would be more appropriate if the Minister commented on that matter. I hope that he will make a note so that later we might hear what investigations have taken place. There are some important questions to ask, because that company will be the employer of my constituents and, more important, it will provide vital services to our Royal Navy in one of its most sensitive contracts—the refitting of the Trident submarines.
I make no apology for returning to some of the themes about which I have spoken in previous years, partly because I have never had satisfactory answers to some of my questions, especially on issues of concern to service personnel and their families. I have pursued the matter of the service quarters, or more properly the empty married quarters, for nearly four years. All that has happened in that time is that the number of empty properties has gone up, despite the many promises that we have had from Ministers.
I tabled some questions for written answer in September 1992. The answers showed that there were 10,322 empty properties. The Ministry of Defence promised that urgent action was being taken to put that right. In September 1993, the number of empty properties had grown to 10,928, and that was followed by further reassurances that troops were coming home and the houses would be disposed of. In September 1994, there were 11,995 empty properties. The latest figure in December 1995, after all the efforts and energies of the Ministry of Defence had gone into disposing of those properties, showed that 14,098 properties were empty. That is nothing short of a national scandal.
The Joseph Rowntree report published in 1992, "Filling empty homes", put the cost of keeping a Government-owned dwelling empty at approximately £10,000 per home a year. That includes the rent loss, empty property rates, security costs, the cost of the dilapidation and the bed-and-breakfast costs of those who could live in that property but instead live in temporary accommodation. I make that £141 million a year of lost money. That is £16,093 an hour; so those 14,098 empty homes have cost nearly £50,000 during this debate.
I wish to remind the Minister of a comment that has been made about the situation. It was made not by me, or by any other Labour Member, or even by a troublesome Conservative Back Bencher, but by the Department of the Environment's task force report in July 1994 about the Ministry of Defence policy of leasing empty properties to local authorities. The report stated:
"The record seems to the Task Force rather unimpressive."
It continued:
"the principle of making vacant housing stock available to non-MoD clients should be considered urgently by the Service Departments; but little seems to have happened."
The task force was slightly wrong about that because something has happened—there are now more empty properties than when it made that comment. The most damning comment made by the task force—by one Government Department about another—was:
"MoD have declared many times that they are not a social housing agency. This is obviously true but it should not serve as an excuse for short-sighted anti-social activity."

1175
In its conclusions, the task force said:
"Regrettably, our assessment is that the MoD appears to have been unwilling to accept many of these suggestions … MoD has consistently avoided making any commitments to the Task Force either to improve its housing practices or to reduce its voids."
Mr. Arbuthnot: In view of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, I presume that he fully supports the Ministry of Defence's decision to sell the married quarters estate in a way that will release some money to improve the standard of the portion of the married quarters estate that the Ministry of Defence continues to need.
Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the Minister for anticipating the next part of my speech. He will recall that privatisation was attempted two years ago, when the Crown Housing Trust was set up. To refresh the Minister's memory, I shall tell him that £5.4 million was spent on consultants, estate agents and all the people who usually benefit from Tory privatisations. A chief executive was appointed to a job that turned out to be nearly impossible. His salary was £80,000 a year, with performance pay of £20,000 a year, of which he received £18,000 for increasing the number of empty homes by 3,000.
The whole initiative collapsed, but the Ministry of Defence paid the chief executive £180,000 because his contract was not fulfilled. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but after the Ministry had paid the chief executive's salary, performance pay and compensation for his contract, it re-employed him to work on the next failed enterprise. If the Minister is claiming that privatisation is the answer to the empty properties, he should consider the recent history of the Ministry of Defence and its total failure to put people into those empty homes and to maintain its stock.
The Minister asked if I would welcome the privatisation and the sale of the properties by a private operator. The Minister should consider the situation in Peterborough, the Tory party chairman's constituency, where about 150 properties were put on the market. We do not know what price was received for those properties by the taxpayer via the Ministry of Defence because that is commercially confidential information. We cannot be told how much was received, but we know that the properties must have been sold at bargain basement prices, because those properties were put on to market immediately at rock-bottom prices. Of course, people in the area then found that their properties moved further into negative equity, and all sorts of problems were caused. So privatisation is not the way forward.
I suggest that the Minister read the Tory party's 1992 manifesto. It stated that empty Government properties should be released for social housing. Success is possible. Some such properties are being released in the coming week in Plymouth; about 160 Furse Park estate homes, some of them having lain empty for some 18 months or more and having fallen into decay, are being thus released. That is happening only because the Empty Homes Agency and I served an order on the MOD through the Department of the Environment. We have had to prise the fingers of the MOD off those homes one by one.
I believe that a housing association will take over the homes, and the city council will put into them 160 families currently living in bed-and-breakfast
1176
accommodation or in shelters for the homeless. That represents the way forward. I recommend that the Minister avoid the privatisation route and look at what we have successfully achieved working together in partnership—the MOD, the housing associations and the city council—in the best interests of the homeless and of the taxpayer.
What is to happen to service men and women who currently enjoy the discount scheme for former service quarters? Will they continue to receive any sort of discount; can such a scheme survive privatisation? I believe that the take-up of the scheme is running at about 400 a year. The reason why it is so low is that often service personnel occupy homes that they do not want to buy because they are in areas in which they do not want to live. There is a rumour that the discount scheme is to be abandoned—perhaps the Minister will comment—and that some sort of cash discount scheme that will apply to all service people is to he put in place. If so, many more people will want to take up the scheme because it will apply to any house on the market.
Where is the money to come from? Will it be capped? How will it be decided who is to benefit from the fund? In essence, Ministers are taking away the discount scheme, and that will seriously disadvantage former service personnel—just to make the privatisation look attractive. It is the taxpayer who will lose out.
Another matter that I have raised in the past and about which I feel deeply concerns the fact that many of the families in my constituency use the service children's boarding scheme. I support the idea of boarding education being available for families who need to move around the world and around the country because they are in the service of the country. But the Minister really ought to take a look at many of the families who are benefiting from the scheme but who are not moving around. The Government should perhaps consider education closer to home in the public sector, which does not cost so much.
In 1994–95 this service boarding scheme cost the taxpayer £107 million. What checks are being carried out to ensure that the taxpayer gets good value for money? I concede that many of the schools in the scheme are good independent schools, but the Minister will know from my correspondence with his Department and with the Service Children's Education Association that many of the schools are poor. I have raised this matter with the Minister many times.
The Minister may have seen the article that appeared on 3 December 1995 in The Observer which was deeply critical of a school in Somerset called the Quantock school. Many of its children come from service families. I asked a parliamentary question about it to find out what assessment had been made of the suitability of the Quantock school, Taunton, to be retained on the list of the admissible schools. The Minister replied:
"A number of reservations were expressed concerning the quality of pastoral care available, and as a result, the suitability of Quantock school to remain on the MOD admissible schools list is being reviewed."—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 479.]
It appears, following a further question of mine, that it will take until March 1996 before anything is done in this respect.
The Minister must deal with the problem of inadequate schools immediately. I do not know whether he has seen a document entitled "Ofsted and Onward". It has been

1177
produced by a private contractor, CfBT Education Services, for the Office for Standards in Education. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West has quoted Gilbert today, and I want to quote Evelyn Waugh's "Decline and Fall", referred to also in the aforementioned document:
"We class schools … into four grades: Leading School, First-rate School, Good School and School. Frankly … School is pretty bad."
The document goes on to describe a prep school that had been the subject not of an Ofsted report which is then made public but of a rather cosy inspection by other people from other independent schools. The Minister should take note of what was said about the school:
"But in reality this … institution is—if the term has meaning—a 'failing school'. Its fees are high and its pupils are drawn from wealthy (albeit often broken) families, the sons and daughters of military officers, British expatriates and successful businessmen. Very many of its pupils failed to gain entry to the public schools of even their second or third choice; several teachers are incapable of keeping order, let alone organising and encouraging learning; bullying and other forms of unacceptable behaviour are rampant; and 'value for money' is a cheerless joke."
This school, wherever it may be, is being supported by taxpayers' money via the MOD. The Minister should look into the problem and investigate the school. If it is indeed failing, the least we can do is make sure that service families are informed.
I hope to get cross-party support for my last point. It concerns service men—it was just men—who served in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and who were exposed in the course of their duties to asbestos. The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 prevented service personnel from making any claim for compensation following exposure to asbestos. The self-same Act gave the right to civilian dockyard workers who had been similarly exposed to claim compensation.
Many of my constituents who are civilian workers were exposed to asbestos and have been able to claim compensation, although not usually a great amount. In 1987 the Act was amended by a private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), to give service men and women the right to claim for exposure to asbestos. By then, asbestos had long been removed from the ships. Of course, no one has claimed; the Bill did not give people the right to claim retrospectively.
This problem affects people who served in the 1939–45 war, others who served in later conflicts and many men who, as youngsters, were sent down to the bowels of the ships and told to strip the lagging off the pipes, thereby being exposed to the worst sort of asbestos. Many of these men, now in their 50s, 60s and 70s, are contracting mesothelioma and other diseases directly related to exposure to asbestos.
This is not a party issue. I ask the Minister at least to make sure that a proper assessment is made of how many men are suffering and of the possible cost of offering them some sort of ex gratia payment for the service that they gave and the suffering that they have endured. This is a rare example of an employer wilfully exposing people to a danger and passing an Act of Parliament to stop them claiming any form of compensation for the danger to which they were exposed.
In my brief contribution, I have tried to address some of the matters of serious concern to former and present service men and women and to those who have given loyal service in the dockyard. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply tonight.
7.19 pm
Mr. John Hutton: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). I cannot promise to match his literary references, but I echo his comments about the men and women who serve in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. We are lucky to have the services of so many dedicated and professional men and women, and I express my admiration and respect for them.
I pay tribute also to the crew of the HMS Cumberland, who, in the past year, have spent much time supporting my county of Cumbria in its efforts to attract new investment and new jobs. All of my constituents would like to express their appreciation and thanks to the officers and the crew of HMS Cumberland.
My constituency has enjoyed a very long association with the Royal Navy. Over the past 150 years, we have built some of the Navy's finest ships, and we continue to do so. My constituency also plays host to many Royal Navy personnel who are currently involved in the Trident programme, and we look forward to a long and continuing association with the Royal Navy.
I think it is common ground on both sides of the House that the past five years have been a period of enormous change for the Royal Navy. Those changes have seen a significant reduction in the size of the fleet—which has raised doubts about its operational capabilities—and those reductions in turn have had a dramatic effect on the size of the United Kingdom naval shipbuilding industry.
Recently, we saw the closures of the Cammell Laird shipyard on Merseyside and the Swan Hunter shipyard on the Tyne. There have been many job losses at Yarrow on the Clyde and at Vosper Thornycroft at Southampton—and that is leaving to one side what has happened in my constituency since 1991 and the release of "Options for Change".
I am sure that the Minister is aware of what has been going on at Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. at Barrow-in-Furness, where almost 10,000 jobs have been lost in little more than four years. That has had a tremendous effect on the local economy, and has dealt a devastating blow to my constituency. We are a geographically isolated part of the United Kingdom, which has historically relied on one employer—the shipbuilding firm in that area. My constituents have found it enormously difficult to make the necessary adjustments when they have had to endure so much pain over a short period.
Therefore, I make no apology for concentrating on naval procurement policy, and what I believe to be the Government's failure to manage the process of change in an effective and a sensible manner. I shall deal particularly with the Government's continuing emphasis on competition as the driving force behind their procurement policy. However, before I turn to those issues, I shall comment more generally on the Royal Navy's future role.
I believe that our first priority must be to ensure that the Royal Navy is capable of deploying flexible, highly mobile and self-sustaining forces to any part of the world whenever the need arises. That requirement is a reflection of the end of the cold war and the disappearance of a single, monolithic threat.
In his eloquent speech to the House tonight, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) referred to the fact that quotations by

1179
admirals featured in all hon. Members' speeches tonight. I shall continue that tradition by referring to the comments of Sir Benjamin Bathurst in his article in the Royal United Services Institute Journal of August 1995. I agree with him, when, summarising the effects of the "Options for Change" review and the Royal Navy's change of direction, he concludes:
"Yet overall the move to a broad and balanced expeditionary navy will be seen as a pretty radical change from the anti-submarine warfare orientated doctrines of the Cold War".
If we are to support that operational shift in the Royal Navy doctrine, its forces should include aircraft carriers, long-range submarines and landing ships. I think that it is the responsibility not only of the Government but of the Opposition to construct policies that will ensure that the Royal Navy has that equipment and those resources to meet the challenges of the next millennium.
It would be remiss of me to let the issue pass without expressing regret that, earlier today, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement attempted to give the impression that Labour would unilaterally abandon Britain's nuclear deterrent. That is not the case.
Dr. John Reid: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised that issue, because it seems that, whenever four Tories gather together, they are genetically compelled to spread myths. I shall take this opportunity to set the record straight. Like the Government, we would like to see a nuclear-free world. Towards that end, we will encourage and participate in global multilateral negotiations. However, until that day—which I fear is far off—we shall retain Trident, and have a deterrent as long as any potential enemy has one.
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting the record straight. We all want to see nuclear disarmament—in fact, I understand that it is Government policy to promote it on a multilateral basis. I am glad to say that that is also my party's policy. My hon. Friend has made it quite clear that we shall not indulge in a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. When discussing the policies and the operational doctrine of the Royal Navy, it is important to have regard to the role it plays deploying Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, in addition to the more flexible approach that we want it to adopt.
Secondly, we must ensure that operations involving long-range deployment of Royal Navy forces can be fully supplied and serviced. A number of concerns have been expressed about the resources available to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and I am glad that at least one of the issues relating to that force has been partly resolved today. We understand that the Ministry of Defence has issued an invitation to tender for two replacements for the O class tankers. That is welcome, but I ask the Minister to say tonight to whom those invitations have been extended.
I see that the Minister is reading a newspaper, which I understand is not the practice that hon. Members should adopt during a debate in this place. I am sorry to see him doing that, and I hope that he is still listening to me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I shall clear up that matter. If the Minister is reading a newspaper in connection with the debate, he is in order. If it is not connected with the debate, of course he is not.
Mr. Hutton: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It pains me to refer to the hon. Gentleman in that way, as I know that he takes a very close interest in debates. My constituents will want to know who has been invited to tender, and what time scale the MOD envisages for the tender period. When does the Ministry of Defence expect to issue a contract for the construction of the two new O class vessels?
There is also evidence of continuing overstretch within the Royal Navy. HMS Invincible—an aircraft carrier which was built in my constituency—recently broke almost all the Royal Navy's harmony objectives after its service commitments in the Adriatic. That is a matter of some concern to the Defence Select Committee, because it clearly implies an imbalance between the Navy's commitments and its present strengths. I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will address that issue in his speech later tonight.
I now turn to procurement, both in general and specifically in relation to my constituency. Between 1990 and 1995—1990–91 was the year of "Options for Change"—expenditure on naval procurement and sea equipment fell more than the combined fall in expenditure on land and air equipment. In real terms, there was a decline of 41.3 per cent. in naval procurement, compared with a fall of 18.5 per cent. for land equipment and 16.7 per cent. for air equipment. Over the same period, the Ministry of Defence budget decreased by 18.3 per cent.
It is quite clear from those figures that the Royal Navy has taken the brunt of the reductions in Ministry of Defence spending since 1990 and 1991. Given our maritime role and our unique contribution to NATO forces, many people will ask why those cuts have so deeply impacted on the Royal Navy. The reductions have been twice as heavy in expenditure terms for the Navy as the equivalent reductions for the Army and the Royal Air Force.
No one can argue against the concept of competitive procurement, because it clearly provides the taxpayer, through the Ministry of Defence, with value for money. However, as the recent report by the Defence Select Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee has revealed, there are real concerns among those in industry about how that policy is being implemented. I must say that it will be difficult to sustain the policy for much longer, as the industry continues to contract and rationalise.
There are a number of particular concerns to which I should like to draw attention. First, reliance on price as the final determinant ignores the need to maintain strategic capability. We have already lost a UK capability in image intensifier tube manufacturing. I think that the Select Committee was right to comment that there is a need to adopt a long-term approach to the retention of strategic capabilities, and to build that into future procurement policies.
Secondly, competitive procurement tends to undervalue the need to maintain the technological base of the United Kingdom's defence companies. The Ministry of Defence should work more closely with the DTI in that sphere. I welcome what the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said today about the Government's response to the report from the Defence Select Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee. It demonstrates movement, and a recognition of some deficiencies in the Government's procurement policies.

1181
Thirdly, companies require more guidance from the Government about their future requirements, which of course was a Select Committee recommendation. That point appears to have been accepted by the Government, which I welcome. The seminar conducted in July by chief executives of defence companies and MOD officials and Ministers was a welcome development. However, it is important that timetables should be adhered to once requirements have been identified.
That did not happen with the batch 2 Trafalgar class update programme, which is currently running almost three years behind schedule. That three-year delay is bound to have adverse consequences for employment and maintaining vital skills in my constituency.
Finally, I should like to refer to some specific issues that are of concern to my constituents. I am thinking in particular about the contract to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, and the prime contractorship for the new Trafalgar class submarines. As for the batch 2 Trafalgar class programme, I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the decision to award the prime contract to the GEC-Marconi team and not to VSEL was a huge disappointment to my constituents. The loss of the prime contract has created a mood of real uncertainty in my constituency.
In a letter dated 22 January this year to the Prime Minister, Tom Campbell, the chief executive of Barrow borough council, said:
"We do not expect the Government simply to hand out work to GEC Marine but we do believe that the Government has a responsibility to the skilled work force of the town and the thousands who have already lost their jobs. We do need your help to alleviate the fear which hangs over every household in Barrow as a result of the now precarious and uncertain defence procurement strategy."
There is a real concern in my constituency about what VSEL's role will be in the construction of those new submarines for the Royal Navy. I understand, and obviously accept, that the allocation of work is a matter for the prime contractor. However, I hope and expect that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be able to give me some reassurance tonight that he accepts that the expertise and skills of VSEL workers will be fully utilised in the construction of the Royal Navy's submarines.
It is particularly important to bear in mind—the Minister referred to it—VSEL's role, for many years, as the United Kingdom's submarine specialist. The Minister referred in particular to our success in completing the Trident programme to time and to cost. I hope that he is not now contemplating a situation in which the skills and expertise that have been built up in VSEL are put at risk. He must make it his business to ensure that my constituents are fully involved in the construction of those submarines.
Several hon. Members have referred to the replacement programme for the landing platform docks HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. I am afraid that those contracts are quite substantially behind schedule. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that he expects that those contracts will be placed in the near future. My hope is that the contracts will be placed towards the end of April. I hope that he can confirm that he is also working towards that timetable.
The Navy is clearly undergoing substantial changes. It is also true that the Royal Navy continues to enjoy a worldwide reputation. There is no doubt that it will do all
1182
that it can, in the present circumstances, not only to maintain that reputation but to build on it. In doing so, it will continue to have the full support and confidence of the House.
7.35 pm
Mr. Llew Smith: During the annual Navy debate, it is usual to hear many hon. Members making speeches to maintain Royal Navy establishments in their constituencies or a special plea that the Royal Navy has already seen too many cuts. I intend to put a somewhat different case, and call for massive cuts in the Royal Navy's Trident nuclear programme.
I do so for a number of reasons. The total lifetime cost of Trident—including construction, deployment, repair and decommissioning—is about £50,000 million. That is somewhat different from the £11,500 million that the Government quote, but that is only in relation to construction costs. Even the low figure of £11,500 million is an obscene waste of money.
As I understand it, about £10,000 million has already been spent on Trident. That means that thousands of millions of pounds could be saved if we cancelled the Trident programme now. Much of that money could be reinvested in communities such as mine in Blaenau Gwent or other parts of the world where people are in desperate need of money.
The Attorney-General, when he recently gave evidence before the International Court of Justice, argued that nuclear weapons could be used legally
"in accordance with the right to self-defence as recognised by article 51 of the United Nations Charter."
However, there is no defence. Once one has used those nuclear weapons, all the things and all the people one purports to be defending are destroyed by radiation and other consequences.
The Attorney-General argued that nuclear weapons could be used selectively without causing too much harm to civilians. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), would be wise to heed the warning that came from the recent anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: step back and learn from us. He could also learn from the tragic experiences of the veterans who were involved in atomic tests and who now, 30 or 40 years later, suffer the terrible effects of radiation exposure. The threat of a nuclear winter is also instructive.
Is it not ironic that this week not only the Attorney-General but all hon. Members have in one way or another debated how we can create a far richer and better world? In this debate on the Navy, the same politicians who are supporting Trident to ensure that our future is safe and secure are willing to put the future of the earth in jeopardy, destroying that which hon. Members want to improve. I do not think that we have a right to do that. It would be the gravest crime of all.
We are not only saying that we are willing to destroy people who are living, but, as someone once said, we are willing to cancel the lives of people who are not yet born. That is what is at stake when we debate nuclear weapons. It is not the dangerous nonsense extolled by the Attorney-General and other Members of the House.
The second reason for chopping the Trident budget is that the Trident programme distorts the entire defence budget, in particular the Navy budget. So Trident should be cancelled now, and we should cut our financial losses, in the knowledge that we must avoid potential disaster.

1183
There is another financial reason for sinking Trident now. Rob Green, a retired nuclear submarine commander, argues that both Polaris and Trident are
"worse than useless, because they undermine our security by provoking the greater danger that we face."
He rightly recognises that, if we are to continue to go down the nuclear road, we cannot argue that other countries which are at present non-nuclear should not join us on that road. Indeed, by our very act of maintaining our nuclear weapons, we encourage those countries to follow us down that road.
Sir Henry Leech, the First Sea Lord, was the first to describe Trident as
"a cuckoo in the naval nest",
meaning that Trident stole money from other parts of the Navy budget. Commander Green also points out that Richard Sharpe, then also a captain on the Royal Navy staff, later wrote in 1988–89:
"Because funding for Trident has come mainly from the naval share of the defence budget it is having an increasingly detrimental effect on the equipment programme for the rest of the Fleet."
Although I do not personally argue for the redistribution of savings made by cancelling Trident to other parts of the Navy's equipment programme, it is clear that some very senior naval officers have come to recognise that Trident has been funded at a serious cost to other parts of the Navy.
My third and last, but not least, reason for cutting the Trident budget is not based on saving finances. It is based on saving this beautiful green planet of ours from the threat of nuclear devastation. Let no one be in any doubt that Trident promotes nuclear proliferation, while the Government claim to combat it.
In the 1995 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", the Government stated:
"Under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered into force in 1970, the United Kingdom is committed to work towards nuclear disarmament (and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control). Successive Governments have taken this commitment very seriously. The United Kingdom has only ever deployed the minimum deterrent necessary for security and has been at the forefront of international endeavours to develop the stability in international relations that is the essential step towards disarmament. And, with the end of the Cold War, the Government has made major reductions in the size of British nuclear forces."
I suppose that it is some kind of progress that a document produced by the Ministry of Defence even recognised the existence of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. One would not have thought that it existed from listening to a succession of Ministers at the Dispatch Box during Defence questions, defending our purchase and deployment of Trident. It has been demonstrated many times that Trident is a significant increase in our capability, and therefore a serious act of nuclear proliferation. Even if the number of warheads is kept similar to the number deployed on Polaris, the qualitative difference in targeting capacity and accuracy of the missile system makes it a much more potent weapon.
Last month, the United Kingdom began negotiations in Geneva to reach agreement on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The British Government were diplomatically dragged to the conference table, having spent years
1184
constructing more and more exotic reasons for postponing the start of test ban talks. The delays were obviously intended to permit the completion of the design tests on Trident warheads. It does not take a genius to work that out.
It is counter-productive for the Government to back the French nuclear testing programme, which undermines the attempts to achieve a test ban treaty. Some of us warned not so many months ago, and it has now happened, that radioactive iodine would leak from the nuclear tests conducted at Mururoa. The French Government even admit that that has occurred. Yet we were informed by both the French and British Governments that there was no risk of such environmental contamination. So an apology from the Minister when he replies to the debate would not go amiss.
Whether we are for or against Trident, I should have thought that, in view of its cost and the terrible consequences if the warheads were ever used, the Government would encourage the provision of the maximum information on that and related subjects. Unfortunately, that is not so. The Minister refused to send a copy of the annual progress report on Trident to each and every Member of Parliament. He argued that to do so would not be a sensible use of resources, even though he had to admit that the cost would not have exceeded £1,000. How is it that the Government can manage to find £50,000 million to support Trident, but cannot find £1,000 to distribute a report on the development of that weapon to Members of this House?
7.45 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am tempted to begin by quoting the great—I use the word deliberately and advisedly—predecessor of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) by saying, "Hands up who agrees with that lot."
Mr. Llew Smith: My predecessor agreed.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Absolutely. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) nodding in agreement. We have heard the authentic voice of old Labour articulated with a sincerity and passion that we all admire and which any true democrat respects, but which is light years away from the real world in which we live. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) nodding his head so vigorously. The speech of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent moved him so literally that he left the Chamber as his hon. Friend began to extol the virtues of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament cause.
Dr. Reid: Lest any discourtesy be implied, let me inform the hon. Gentleman that an urgent telephone call led me to leave. As for our position on the nuclear deterrent, despite the sincerity of my hon. Friend's view, I have made our position plain from the Front Bench. We do not agree with him.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reassurance. Of course we all accept that he had to leave for a telephone call. It is a matter of some relief that the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is now more in tune with the realities of the world.

1185
As I listened to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, closed my eyes and enjoyed his rhetoric, I could see the Opposition Benches peopled, as they were when I came into the House in 1970, with serried ranks of those who would have agreed with him. No one can for half a second dispute the integrity of the hon. Gentleman's views and his convictions, but if the view that he espouses now had prevailed in the 1970s, we would not be having this debate in a world in which the iron curtain is down and the Soviet Union has disintegrated and from which, although there are many real dangers to the peace of the world, the terrible threat of nuclear war has been largely removed.
I believe that the doctrine of deterrence, which was espoused by the post-war Labour Government and continued by the Government led by the illustrious grandfather of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and continued beyond that, saved the freedoms that we enjoy and take for granted.
Mr. Smith: I take all the hon. Gentleman's criticisms as compliments, so I thank him. The hon. Gentleman defends nuclear weapons, so I would like to ask him a question that I have asked others. If the crunch came and he were in a position of power, would he be willing to use those nuclear weapons? In anticipation of their use, what devastation would be inflicted on our environment and population worldwide? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will answer the questions that the Minister has failed to answer.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Nobody can doubt the devastating power of nuclear weapons and how terrible it would be if they had to be used. Their use would represent the failure of the doctrine of deterrence. However, if one has a deterrent, in the ultimate resort, one has to be prepared to use it.
Mr. Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman press the button?
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman should not get so agitated. I am answering his question quite unequivocally and explicitly. Yes, of course I would. If the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Clement Attlee and others had not had similar courage in 1945, terrible as the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, the war would have lasted longer, many more people would have been killed and we would have inherited a much darker world. That is now accepted across the broad range of political opinion in the hon. Gentleman's party, my party and the Liberal Democrat party.
I was tempted into a digression at the beginning of my speech. Perhaps I should not have been, although the essence of debate is to reply to what has been said. I should have started with an apology to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I came into the Chamber hoping that I would have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who told me that he was hoping to speak. I had no intention of speaking in the debate and, for the first time in nearly 26 years in the House, I am speaking in a debate without having heard the opening speeches. That is very bad and I am sorry, but I thought it even worse to have depopulated Benches and not to speak.
1186
I had not realised how many of my hon. Friends, who usually take part in these debates with great eloquence and knowledge, had other pressing engagements this evening. That is a serious issue for all those concerned with the regulation of business in the House. Jopling advocate as I was and remain, it is clear that we have to re-examine the structure of Thursday's business.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interesting as that observation is, we are debating the Royal Navy, not the Jopling proposals.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was making a passing reference that was entirely relevant. We are debating the Royal Navy and, for the first time in all my years in the House—and I have been here longer than anyone in the Chamber at the moment—I have attended a Royal Navy debate and there has not been a long list of hon. Members who hope to speak, if not a densely packed Chamber.
Britain is a maritime nation or it is nothing. The rich, proud history of our nation is indissolubly tied up with the history of our maritime exploits, both in trade and in war. We should take enormous pride in the way in which the Royal Navy has preserved the freedom of our country over the centuries. We owe a great debt to the Navy and to the men and women who now serve in it. They are as dedicated and as skilful as their predecessors; they are led with distinction, they have equipment and ships of high sophistication and we should be glad of that. We should take comfort from the fact that although the navies of other maritime nations have been savagely cut, the cuts have not been so great here. I should say to my hon. Friend the Minister that they have been greater than I would have liked. I have a number of points to which I hope he will reply.
I am very worried about the lack of auxiliary back-up for the Royal Navy. We all remember the Falklands war—one of the most glorious episodes in recent history for the Royal Navy, which made an invaluable contribution to the success of an incredibly important venture. The Royal Navy could not have done what it did without the assistance of the veritable armada of merchant ships. I wonder whether a similar operation could be mounted today if there were a need for it. It is important that we have regard for our merchant marine.
I have a real vested interest in the subject, as my father was a master mariner. I grew up by the sea and I have a great regard—second only to my regard for the Royal Navy—for those who, over the centuries, have gone down to the sea in ships and occupied their business in great waters as members of the merchant marine. It is sad that so many of those who now serve in the merchant marine do so under flags that are not British. If the red ensign has not disappeared from the surface of the waters, it is a much rarer sight.
I should also mention the fishery protection fleet. My home town was Grimsby in Lincolnshire and I suppose that I am one of the few hon. Members who has gone to sea with a fishing fleet. I took an 18-day trip in a North sea trawler in 1965 when I was seeking to wrest Grimsby from the clutches of the late Anthony Crosland. I did not succeed, of course, although I made a very good friend who remained one until the day he died. Both Anthony Crosland and I took deep-sea voyages with the fishing fleet. It is sad that the fleet has so reduced in size since then.

1187
Is my hon. Friend absolutely confident that our fishery protection vessels are adequate to the different, but still important, tasks that they have to perform in defending our fishermen, who have the most hazardous of all peacetime occupations?
I represent what used to be a mining seat. Alas, the collieries have now closed. I used to say that fishermen and miners had the most hazardous of all occupations, but if I had to say which was more hazardous, it would be that of the fisherman, who cannot go home at night to his wife and family and who battles against the elements for 24 hours a day, often in extremely difficult conditions. Our fishermen deserve every possible protection.
I shall mention two further issues. I know that one has been touched on earlier because, with all the wonders of modern technology, some of us can follow proceedings in the Chamber from our offices. I am not sure that it is altogether a good thing.
I shall not expand on that or you might call me to order again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it gave me the benefit of seeing a colourful performance by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who referred to the royal yacht. I sincerely hope that there will soon be an announcement of a new royal yacht. It is a marvellous floating ambassador that is also cost-effective. It has been used splendidly by the Queen and members of the royal family and I believe that they deserve another one. Britannia has been used far beyond carrying the sovereign. It has been employed to further Britain's trading interests and Britain's image throughout the world. I hope sincerely that, if it is decided that Britannia cannot, with any economic sense, have another refit, there will be another royal yacht. I am sure that no one would grace its decks with greater aplomb than the grandson of the greatest First Lord of the Admiralty that this country has ever had.
Another subject that causes me great concern was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. It is, of course, the future of the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. I have been much exercised about the future of what is, by any standard or definition, one of the finest assemblies of historic buildings anywhere in the world. It is rich in history and in architecture. We should all take a pride in these buildings. They encapsulate so much of the best of our past because of the historical events with which they are associated and because they represent the high point of architecture in this country.
Mr. Raynsford: One of the high points.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes. One of the high points. I bow, as it were, to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary correction, in whose constituency—lucky man—the buildings are.
I shall never understand what possessed my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to advertise—albeit, in the pages of Country Life, a good magazine which I take every week—such a marvellous collection of buildings. It was an extraordinary lapse of taste, judgment and sensitivity.
I should like the college to continue in the possession of the Royal Navy. I am not persuaded that the arguments against that are overwhelming. If they are not overwhelming, however, they have at any rate for the moment prevailed. That I accept.
1188
Being ever a realist, and trying to deal with the world as it is and not as I would wish it to be—it would be a very different place if my wishes prevailed—I must accept the premise on which the Government are basing their case, which is that another use must be found. I must accept also that the college has had other uses in the past. It is crucial, however, that the use to which the buildings are put is seemly and appropriate.
There are some buildings that should for ever be part of the national, public heritage—buildings that should never pass out of the control or supervision of government. Pre-eminently in that category are the buildings of the college at Greenwich. Any use that is found for them must be seemly and suitable for the great buildings that they are. The painted hall must still have its proper uses.
I went down the Thames during the summer last year as a guest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He was conducting a concert in the chapel at Greenwich. Rostropovich was playing. It was a marvellous evening. We sat in the chapel and had dinner in the painted hall afterwards. We all had an enormous sense of pride. It is—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister is peeved because he was not there, perhaps. He would have enjoyed the evening as much as anyone else, I am sure. His love of the good life and his knowledge of music are legendary. Whatever use is found for the college buildings, it is important that such events should continue to take place.
There is a place for great ceremonial service and state occasions at Greenwich. It would be sad if that use were completely taken away. Whoever the new user is and whatever the new use is, they must be compatible with occasional state ceremonial occasions. I am a great believer in state ceremonial; it lifts our hearts and cheers us up in a dull world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind.
Above all else, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that whoever occupies the buildings—he will be extraordinarily privileged to use them—is British. I do not say that in a narrow chauvinistic sense. Can one imagine the French ever leasing Versailles to a Japanese correspondence college? Can one ever imagine the Dutch leasing the Mauritshuis in The Hague? Change of use might be on a par with that.
The college is part of the fabric of our nation's history. It is part of our birthright as a nation. It cannot and must not pass out of British hands. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that any future use must have some reference to our maritime past. There must be something of an education content. In saying that, I am not suggesting that there is only one answer or one possible end user. Young men and women who have the privilege of learning in a fine and historic environment have great privilege. We must ensure that some young men and women continue to have that privilege at Greenwich.
I beg of my hon. Friend the Minister to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there are some on the Conservative Benches—I suspect that the same applies to occupants of the Opposition Benches—who take the view that any lease to any foreign organisation, company or country would be completely unacceptable. Much as it would grieve me to take such action, I could not accept such a lease and I would do everything possible to frustrate it. I cannot believe that it will happen because

1189
I have enormous confidence in the good sense and judgment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who in the past fortnight has demonstrated his many diverse qualities in a brilliant way in the House. He has my committed support. I cannot believe that he would listen to any ministerial suggestion that Greenwich should go to any foreign bidder. It must not, and the suggestion must not even be made.
If it takes a little—
Mr. Soames: If I may make a respectful suggestion to my hon. Friend in the spirit of a friendship that has existed during the short time that I have been a Member of this place, I think that he is making heavy weather in a naval debate. There has never been any suggestion that Greenwich would ever be used in the way that he fears or suggests. He rightly says that such use would be wholly unthinkable.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend. If I was making heavy weather, it was because I was hoping that my hon. Friend would rise to make the sort of statement that we have just heard.
During my time in the Chamber this evening we have had two historic pronouncements. We have had an unequivocal assurance on Trident from the Opposition Front Bench and my hon. Friend's unequivocal assurance. On that note of happy amity, I am delighted to resume my place.
8.9 pm
Mr. Jamie Cann: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on his brilliant extemporaneous speech. He emptied the Gallery when he started, but he has since attracted four back in, so he has done well. I might add that I come from Barton on Humber, which is near Grimsby, and my grandfather was a canal man. He used to travel to Leeds and York from the cement works near there, so we have a mutual interest.
In my constituency there is water, but it is used only by commercial ships, not naval ones. We had a Royal Naval Auxiliary Service launch until a couple of years ago. I speak as someone with an interest in naval affairs and as someone who is British and takes a pride in our naval history. Mainly for that reason, I joined the armed forces trust this year, with the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). We have been around and about. I shall tell the House a little about it and about what I have seen and heard from speaking to people.
So far I have been to Northern Ireland, where I rowed on Loch Neagh, which was the most terrifying thing that I had ever done until I got out on to the Irish sea in a minesweeper and was picked up by a Sea King helicopter in a force 6 gale. According to the sailors, minesweepers in the Irish sea roll on wet grass. I admit that I could not eat my lunch, although I managed to keep down my breakfast, but the hon. Member for Shoreham ate his and mine. The hon. Gentleman and I have also been to HMS Excellent in Portsmouth, where we were put through the firefighting course. As soon as I got back to Ipswich, I changed all the extinguishers in my office, because they were the wrong ones. We have been out on RFA Fort George, off Plymouth. We have been to Northwood maritime command centre. I commend it to anybody, because it is much more interesting than sitting here for four hours waiting to speak.
1190
To a man and a woman, the people whom I have seen in the Royal Navy in this short time have been thoroughly professional, and absolutely dedicated to the service. They work for some 24 hours a day. They are loyal to the Government of the day, no matter what party the Government may be. When I spoke to them and asked them about things, they were straight talkers as well. I very much enjoyed that. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shoreham would agree.
I shall not speak at length about how wonderful the Navy is, as many hon. Members have done that today, and I agree with them, but I did see a number of problems or the odd cloud on the horizon. It was expected that women on ships would create a problem. That is not so, as everybody has told me. There are currently 500 women on ships. Most are junior ratings, but some are senior, and there have been no problems other than those related to accommodation on some of the older ships because of the necessity to have separate mess areas and toilets, but the new ships take account of the fact that there are women on board, and they have no such problems. I am sorry that many women on ships are drifting into jobs that women tend to do on land—stewarding, cooking and so on, which is not quite in the spirit. There is plenty of time for them to develop other interests, and I am sure that they will.
My second point, which is a problem, relates to the Navy's equipment. People say that there are about 35 destroyers and frigates, three carriers, two landing ships and so on, but it is not quite as rosy in certain areas. Yes, we have three carriers—HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal—but at any given time one of them is tied up, and there are only two air groups for them. Therefore, in effect, at a time of war, there would be only two carriers, as one does not carry anything, unless one plundered RAF or Army Air Corps units to put on it, in which case, presumably, they would be taken away from where they should be in a time of war. I ask the Minister to tell us when he replies whether that was intended, or is it that way to save money? The House would want to know.
A worse example in some ways is RFA Fort George, a 30,000 tonne Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship that carries supplies, food, fuel and ammunition. It is so big and has so much on it that it is not allowed into Plymouth harbour. I was going to take that up with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), but he is not here at the moment. It has four areas where 20 mm guns can be placed. It is equipped with an area for Sea Wolf missile systems. It has a hangar and facilities for five Sea King helicopters. But it has no guns, Sea Wolf missile systems or Sea King helicopters. To reach it, one has to fly from Plymouth airport in a private firm's helicopters, which are not allowed to fly in bad weather because they do not have radar. That might be planned, but it does not sound too clever.
Mr. Soames: I am sorry to interrupt a thoroughly thoughtful and well-informed speech. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that, were that ship to need that equipment, it would have it. As to the helicopters flying from Plymouth for sea training operations, that is an entirely sensible and extremely practical step, and flag officers sea training and all those involved report that it is working extremely well.
Mr. Cann: I am pleased that the Minister can reassure me of that. I can tell him that guns will be provided, because they are coming off the batch 1 type 22s that have been sold to Brazil.
Mr. Soames: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Cann: There is nothing wrong with that. I am merely agreeing with the Minister.
When we left the ship, the helicopters would not come out because the weather was bad, so it is not quite as good as the Minister says. We had to suffer the indignity of being picked up by a Lynx helicopter from a Dutch frigate. I should rather have gone by the Royal Navy. A Dutch frigate is an eye opener and a culture shock when one has been on a Royal Navy vessel.
I understand that there are problems with the computerised weapons systems on the type 23s. The Minister might care to elucidate that when he replies. We are selling off on timetable the batch 1 type 22s, but we do not appear to be introducing the type 23s on timetable. In six months, will we still be able to say that we have a destroyer/frigate force of about 35? According to my arithmetic, that does not appear to be so.
Another matter that I wish to discuss is what is euphemistically known in the private sector as downsizing. For example, on the type 22, the three batches have different complements, but they range between 224 per ship and 273. The type 23, depending on which book one reads, has between 157 and 173, so the complement of a type 23 is about four fifths the complement of a type 22, although they do the same job. In a way, that is good, because it means that the ship can be smaller, so it can be built for less money, it uses less fuel and less materiel, and one is paying fewer sailors.
The difference is made up—at least in theory—by the introduction of high technology to control weapons systems, and so on, which means that fewer crew are needed to operate the ship. That must be right. However, there are disadvantages. There is a problem with releasing sailors to allow them the leave to which they are entitled. When people are sick, that causes a problem. There is also a problem with rostering on occasion. I can see that, in wartime, there would be a problem getting a sufficient number of damage control parties together, compared with the number of excess sailors who would be off duty, for example, on a type 22. I ask the Minister to take up those points when he responds.
I hardly like to mention this, but there is a huge problem on the horizon as a result of the European Court's ruling that homosexuality should be recognised in the European Union. I know that that ruling has exercised the minds of those on board ship and in Northwood—and, no doubt, in the Ministry of Defence. The Navy is currently conducting a vast survey of people who must live in close proximity on ships, asking them whether they think that those who are openly homosexual should be allowed to join the service. I do not wish to predict the outcome of that survey, but it has been suggested that there will be strong opposition to the proposal.
I shall not express a personal opinion at this stage, but I will say this. If the European Union must tell us that we must have straight cucumbers, or that we cannot eat King Edward potatoes, let it do so; but no one should be allowed to tell us how we should run our ships, which are
1192
crucial to our nation's future. I believe that—irrespective of its views on whether homosexuality should be recognised—the House should oppose the European Court in this case.
Members of the armed forces lead a vigorous life. Those who fight wars must be fit and strong, and able to move fast. They therefore tend to be pensioned off much earlier than people like us: hon. Members can drag on until they are 65. I understand that there has been some talk of taking service men's pension rights away from them—reducing the pension, or perhaps getting rid of it altogether. I cannot believe that the Government would propose such a move, but I should be grateful if the Minister assured us that they will guarantee service men's pension rights.
8.21 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: Because my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar)—who is responsible for procurement issues—is to wind up the debate for the Opposition, and because the Minister of State for Defence Procurement opened the debate, I shall make two points on that subject.
In an intervention, I mentioned the Polaris submarine HMS Renown. In 1993, its refit had cost £155 million. Since then it has been mothballed; it has sat in dock waiting to be decommissioned. That has cost more millions of pounds, and we do not know how much longer it will take. The Minister said that it had taken part in three training exercises, but I thought that a pretty poor response. The money could have been much better spent on schools and the national health service. Ministers in this Conservative Government complain that they have not enough money for the armed forces. How do they justify the waste of £155 million?
The other procurement issue was raised at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). He was told that stores and equipment to the value of some £67 million had been lost in the past five years—and that did not include what was lost in Germany. Five per cent. was lost in Northern Ireland. The lost equipment included a Royal Navy thermal imager, a set of rockets and tanks. I am not sure how the Ministry of Defence managed to lose tanks, but it does not say much for its control system. When my hon. Friend asked for a list of items that had been lost, he was told that the MOD did not keep a central record of the loss of any item worth less than £100,000. What sort of accounting system is that? Is it thought that anything worth under £100,000 does not matter to the taxpayer?
Mr. Soames rose—
Mr. Cohen: I shall happily give way, so that the Minister can explain why that money was squandered when it could have been much better spent elsewhere.
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues queried the cost of the refit of HMS Renown. The decision to carry out the refit was taken at a time when the Trident programme was still many years away from fruition. It was essential to ensure the continuation of the cycle of patrols of Resolution class submarines until the Vanguard class was in service. It was a wholly rational decision. Because the Trident programme had gone so

1193
well, we were able to take Renown out of service earlier than would otherwise have been the case. That was not a gross waste of money; the deterrent has remained operational throughout—quite rightly.
Mr. Cohen: That will not do. Millions of pounds were spent on the Trident programme as well. Spending money on both Polaris and Trident must be regarded as a lack of planning. In fact, the Trident programme has not gone so wonderfully, but I shall say more about that later.
In a future debate I may deal with the MOD's new procurement building, which has also cost millions of pounds. It is a castle with a moat and its own railway, surrounded by hundreds of acres of land. Presumably the moat is there so that Navy vessels can sail round it when they are tested before being bought. Now, however, I want to say something about the economics of naval nuclear weapons, a subject that brings us automatically to Trident. Let me ask a simple question: will Trident be the last nuclear weapons system deployed by the United Kingdom?
I ask that question in the context of simple economic necessity rather than politics or strategy. The current official estimate for the purchase of Trident is £11,682 million. I asked the Library to calculate the purchase cost of Polaris in current prices, and it came up with a figure in the region of between £5 billion and £5.5 billion. As with any other military equipment, replacements cost much more than what is being replaced. How much would a follow-on to Trident cost? Between £20 billion and £30 billion, or perhaps more—and that would be just the cost of acquiring the system.
There were many hidden costs in the purchase of Trident, such as the improvement of Aldermaston, which went so badly wrong. The A90 plutonium processing complex, which was due to be operational in 1986, is still not fully operational, and millions of pounds are still required to be spent on the A91 liquid waste facility to get it up to scratch. The cost of those two buildings probably exceeds £1 billion. Many facilities at Faslane and Coulport were not included as Trident works, but were essential to its operations.
If Trident were replaced, it is certain that other parts of the nuclear infrastructure would have to be replaced as well, simply on grounds of age. There would possibly be a much larger contribution to research and development costs, even if a replacement system were bought off the shelf from the United States. The total bill would be more than £30 billion—possibly more than £40 billion in today's prices. Indeed, those figures could be an underestimate. In times of public spending squeezes—indeed, more such squeezes are more likely than our being awash with money—would any Government spend that sort of money?
If Trident were replaced, incurring the high costs to which I referred, the United Kingdom could simply say goodbye to a modern Navy in any other respect. The programme to replace Trident would have to start in five or 10 years, and would probably cost £1 billion a year for the first few years, rising thereafter and taking an increasingly large chunk out of our defence budget.
If Trident is not to be replaced—I have no doubt that, barring some appalling change in the world, even a Tory Government would not spend such money on such a programme in 10 years' time—it must be accepted that 1194
nuclear weapons are not essential to the defence of the country. If the argument that Trident is too expensive is accepted, the Government should also accept that the sky is not going to fall on British heads if we do not have nuclear weapons in 20 or 30 years. The crux of the matter is that if nuclear weapons can be sacrificed in 20 or 30 years time because we do not need them or cannot afford them, are they really needed now?
It is worth looking at how much Trident will cost from now to the end of its life—and therefore how much could be saved if rational decisions on defence policy were made now. About £3 billion has yet to be spent on the acquisition of Trident. The Government say that Trident is also likely to cost about£200 million a year to run, although that figure is considerably hazy, which is understandable as the system is not yet fully up and running. Such haziness pervades all calculations of expenditure on Trident.
Parallels can be drawn with civil nuclear power. For years, costs were hidden away in other budgets to make it look cheaper than it was. Once the books were open to outside scrutiny, the creative accountancy quickly unravelled. Massive expenditure on infrastructure, which would not have been needed if Trident had not been acquired, was attributed to other budgets. Billions of pounds' worth of construction at Aldermaston and Faslane have been hidden from the Trident budget. In future that will not be possible, as all nuclear infrastructure will be in support of Trident and any possible successor to it. There will be far less chance to meet such costs through other budgets and claim that the expenditure was for more general usage, as has been done up to now.
The other costs to be borne in mind are environmental. It is now recognised that the costs of decommissioning military nuclear facilities in the United States will run into hundreds of billions of dollars over coming decades. There is no comparable available information for the UK. The Government have been very slow with a clear-up programme—I refer to the decommissioning of Renown and other Polaris submarines—and do not talk about how much it will cost. There will be a big clear-up bill. In view of costs in the United States, our bill could not be less than tens of billions of pounds.
Another factor to be considered is the increased environmental and health standards that the public now expect. At the height of the cold war, many members of the public were prepared to tolerate radioactive discharges from Aldermaston or Sellafield, because they thought that it was a price worth paying in view of what they saw as the Soviet threat. Those same people will not now tolerate such lax, cancer-inducing behaviour. They expect the Government to make a much greater effort in lessening health hazards and the environmental impact of nuclear power, which will of course cost a great deal more money.
In some ways, it is very sad to return to the economic arguments against nuclear weapons. I should have thought—and have of course argued—that the moral and military arguments were so strong that they would have won the day long ago. I say to my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who made commitments from the Front Bench, that they must face the economic arguments, just as Defence Ministers must at the moment.
Mr. Soames: Yes.
Mr. Cohen: The Treasury will have an increased influence when it sees the costs involved, especially the cost of a replacement programme.
Mr. Soames indicated assent.
Mr. Cohen: The Minister is nodding. I am pleased that he agrees with me. He must therefore accept that the Conservative Government will end up not replacing Trident because of the same economic argument and that a Conservative Treasury will say that enough is enough. Despite their macho stands, both main parties will have to come to terms with the enormous cost of maintaining nuclear weapons and replacing the Trident programme.
In the past few days, the House has heard the chant, "Do as I say, not as I do," passed back and forth across the Chamber in cheap political gibes. Britain's approach to nuclear weapons is relevant to that chant because we are saying that we must keep nuclear weapons, while we tell other countries that they do not need them and cannot have them. That is one of the most obscene and hypocritical cases of, "Do as I say, not as I do," that I have ever come across.
The Government need to respond to the enormous waste of money in procurement. That waste could well continue, not only in a Trident replacement programme, but in current expenditure. It would be far better for the country if we did not waste the money, but spent it on the growing social problems in housing, education and the national health service.
If Trident is to stay in service to the end of its operational life, the economic cost of replacing it will be too high for any Government to bear. If we accept that the country will not be able to afford the costs of being a nuclear power in 20 to 30 years, why not get rid of nuclear weapons now? We could save the money and put it to far better use.
8.38 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument. I propose—as I think every hon. Member is already aware—to focus my remarks primarily on the future of the site occupied by the Royal Naval college in Greenwich.
I very strongly endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on the scandal of empty residential property owned by the Ministry of Defence, much of which is found in areas such as Plymouth. I have visited his constituency and seen many former Ministry of Defence properties left empty, and learnt of the important positive approach now being adopted by Plymouth city council, in conjunction with several housing associations, to bring those properties back into use for people in housing need.
It is a cause of considerable sadness to me that the Ministry, in breach of the Conservative manifesto commitment to use surplus houses for such purposes, now proposes to privatise the married quarters estate in a way that will not only deny those homes to people in need, but will probably lead to a substantially increased revenue cost to the Ministry itself, for the leases on the properties it still requires for its own purposes.
1196
I now return to the main focus of my speech, the Royal Naval college. In previous debates on the Royal Navy, and more recently on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, I have spoken about the site's history, its magnificent architectural heritage and the high quality of training undertaken by the Royal Naval college and the joint service defence college, which are both located on the site at Greenwich.
I have often paid tribute to the work undertaken by the commander and staff of the college, who have maintained a consistent standard of excellence in the training that they offer. I do not feel that I need elaborate on any of that tonight; I believe that it is fully appreciated by all hon. Members with an interest in the Navy.
However, the future of the site is shrouded in uncertainty, as a result of the decision taken a little less than a year ago to choose Camberley as the site for the new tri-service college and the consequent decision to cease the activities of the Royal Naval college and the joint service defence college at Greenwich in 1997.
Many times, both in the House and elsewhere, I have raised serious doubts about the merits of that decision, and about the way in which it was taken. The consultation exercise preceding the decision was a most unsatisfactory affair, involving the presentation of information in a way not helpful to anyone trying to make an informed assessment of the merits of the respective sites under consideration. It also contained several financial assumptions that were questionable, to say the least. I took up many of those at the time with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
The whole tenor of the consultation, the document and the financial forecasts were all clearly designed to convey the impression that Camberley was a cheaper, easier and more cost-effective solution than Greenwich. Those assumptions were always suspect, and what little information has seeped into the public arena in recent months tends to confirm that.
According to the Daily Express of 22 January, there are now real fears that Camberley will not be ready in time to accommodate the colleges being displaced from Greenwich. A senior defence source was quoted as saying that Navy and RAF officers would become "refugees", and would have to find a home from home at a university somewhere. That in itself is an alarming enough prospect, not least for all the officers expecting to take training courses in 1997–98. But it is not the only cause for concern—and that was not the first press report suggesting that the Government were in trouble over their Camberley plans.
On 16 October last year, The Independent reported defence sources as saying:
"There are grave doubts whether the 1997 deadline for forming the Tri-Service College can now be met".
That article also said that there were serious cost overruns, amounting perhaps to tens of millions of pounds. A senior defence source was again quoted as saying:
"There is a lot of teeth sucking going on about the scale of the costs involved in the refurbishment of Camberley".
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is not now in his place, answered the debate on the defence estimates on 17 October, but he did not answer the questions that I had asked him about whether there was substance in those reports. In a subsequent written answer,

1197
the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—I am pleased to see that he, at least, is here—assured me that there was no question of the budget for capital costs being exceeded, but he was more equivocal about the revenue costs budget.
I must now ask the Minister those questions again, and I hope that he will give us a full response tonight. Will he tell the House whether the costs, both capital and revenue, of Camberley are turning out in line with the estimates in the consultation paper about the siting of the tri-service college? If not, how much additional expenditure, both capital and revenue, is now anticipated?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us whether the timetable for accommodating all three service colleges at Camberley by 1997 will be met? Can he guarantee that all the staff and all the naval officers due to participate in staff college training in 1997–98 will be accommodated at the Camberley site as promised? If the answer to any of those questions is no, that must raise serious doubts about the basis of the decision to site the tri-service college at Camberley rather than at Greenwich.
Furthermore, if there is any question of the timetable being delayed, surely the right course must be to reconsider the decision to close the Greenwich site in 1997. Rather than consigning officers to temporary accommodation in some as yet unidentified university elsewhere, would it not make sense to keep the Royal Naval college and the joint service defence college operating at Greenwich for at least one more year?
If there were a pressing and appropriate alternative use for the Greenwich site in the autumn of 1997, there might be a case for saying that it must be closed, even if it cannot be guaranteed that there will be accommodation at Camberley for the people who will not now be able to attend courses at Greenwich. However, all we hear about what is happening to the Greenwich site suggests that that is not the case.
Despite substantial expenditure on a marketing operation by a well-known firm of estate agents, the Government have managed to secure the interest of only a handful of potential users in taking over one of the world's finest complexes of historic buildings. That must raise questions about the competence both of the Ministers responsible for the marketing exercise and of the estate agents who were selling the site—Messrs. Knight, Frank, who apparently lost Mr. Rutley along the way.
Mr. Soames: They ditched him.
Mr. Raynsford: If it was Rutley's fault, will the Minister tell us? Was it Rutley who made a mess of the operation, and is that why his name no longer features in the firm's name?
If reports in last week's edition of The Sunday Telegraph are to be believed, only three bids appeared worthy of short-listing, and two of those were from overseas. The Sunday Telegraph suggests that those consisted of one from a far eastern consortium that wants to turn Greenwich into a language school, offering learning breaks for overseas business men, and another from an American university.
It is hardly surprising that that prospect has alarmed hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as people throughout the country. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made a powerful
1198
speech on the subject, in which he spoke eloquently of the alarm and concern that he and many others feel at the prospect of that magnificent site, one of the country's finest historical and architectural gems, being made over to some foreign organisation with no roots in this country, no association with the Royal Navy, and probably only a limited interest in the wonders of Greenwich, other than as a prestigious site for an operation that could perfectly well take place elsewhere.
In response to a question from the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, the Minister said that there was no question of that. I took his assurance to mean that there is no question of an overseas bidder having the use of the buildings. I want to press the Minister on that matter.
If that assurance was as I and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South understood it to be, and if what is written in The Sunday Telegraph is correct, the far eastern consortium which wants to use the site for a language school and the American university should be told emphatically now that their bids are no longer being considered.
If the Minister can assure us that all overseas bids are now ruled out, it is only fair that those bidders be made aware of that immediately. If the bids are not ruled out, the assurance that the Minister has given us tonight is highly suspect. It must certainly raise questions whether we are being told one thing while the Government are contemplating doing another. I hope that we get a clear and unequivocal assurance from the Minister tonight that the bids have been ruled out, and that only an appropriate source involving a British-based organisation with a concern for the naval and historical heritage of Greenwich will be entertained.
To help rescue the Government from the self-inflicted crisis that this botched marketing exercise has produced, Ministers sensibly agreed before Christmas to appoint a committee of experts to consider the various expressions of interest in the site and to advise the Secretary of State on its future use and management. Given the unpromising way in which the operation has been conducted up to this point—an operation that would not have brought credit on the Royal Navy or any other service had it been a military operation—I have the greatest sympathy for Lord Sainsbury, Lord Farringdon, Dame Jennifer Jenkins and Jocelyn Stevens, who have been given the task of bailing the Government out.
Having said that, I am very relieved that it is those individuals, rather than the Secretary of State—whose judgment in this matter has been shown to be flawed—who are now wrestling with the problem. I wish them well, and I am sure that they will have a proper regard for the national interest. I am sure also that they will take proper account of the strength of public opinion on the matter. If they are to do the job properly, they must be freed from the constraints of an unreasonably tight timetable. They must also not be subject to the limitations of the number of bidders that have been identified to date.
There is a case for keeping the Greenwich complex operating as a service college for at least another year to avoid the spectre of officers being camped out in some other university because they cannot be accommodated at Camberley. Clearly it would be logical to maintain the Greenwich site as a training college throughout that year. That would allow more time for other potential uses of the Greenwich site to be evaluated, and a really appropriate use, or mix of uses, to be agreed.

1199
Equally, if there are anxieties about the calibre of the bids that have been received in response to Messrs. Knight, Frank's marketing exercise—
Mr. Soames: What happened to Rutley?
Mr. Raynsford: The name does not trip off the tongue as well without Rutley. But there we are—apparently the firm is now called Knight, Frank. If the calibre of the bids that have been received in response to the marketing exercise is inadequate—and we have every reason to suspect that it is not impressive—would it not be more sensible now to undertake a more sensitive and wide-ranging trawl of other possible uses to ensure that a truly appropriate use is guaranteed for these incomparable buildings?
Having said that, I have no wish to imply that the university of Greenwich—which is, according to The Sunday Telegraph, the only British short-listed bidder—would not be an appropriate organisation to occupy at least a part of the site. I believe that the university has a valid claim that should be seriously considered. I also believe that the national maritime museum, which occupies an equally fine site across the road from the college, has advanced a strong case for taking over responsibility for running the painted hall and the chapel—the two elements of the complex most likely to attract the largest number of visitors, assuming the site is to be made properly available to the public.
The two options—the university of Greenwich and the national maritime museum—should certainly be the subject of serious consideration. But I find it difficult to believe that, for a complex of buildings of such importance, there are not other possibilities. We are talking about one of the country's most important heritage sites. Can one imagine any other country considering the future uses of such a magnificent group of buildings, but limiting the options simply to those who have replied to an estate agent's advertisement? It is inconceivable that any other country would act in that way, and the sooner the British Government recognise their mistake and start trying to find an appropriate way forward, the better.
The Select Committee examining the Armed Forces Bill will shortly take evidence at Greenwich about the future of the site. I have no doubt that the members of the Committee will receive a great deal of valuable evidence and advice in the course of that day on the appropriate uses for the buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college. There is considerable interest already in Greenwich at the prospect of the visit by the Select Committee, and many people are eager to attend—some to give evidence, others to hear the deliberations of the Committee. That is entirely appropriate and right, and I very much welcome the decision of the Committee to take evidence in Greenwich on the matter.
The discussions relate to the changes proposed in clause 26 of the Armed Forces Bill to the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869, which concerns the uses to which the site can be put. I am sure that members of the Committee will want to consider appropriate amendments to clause 26 in order to circumscribe the wide-ranging powers that the Secretary of State proposes to give himself. As it is currently drafted, clause 26 empowers the Secretary of
1200
State to hand over these magnificent buildings on a lease of up to 150 years on whatever terms he determines to whomever he considers appropriate. These are extraordinarily wide-ranging powers for buildings of such importance.
It is not acceptable to allow the future of Greenwich to be decided on the say-so of the Secretary of State, whose zeal for privatisation, I am afraid, has become all too well known. He might allow that particular prejudice to stand in the way of the national interest in ensuring an appropriate public use for these incomparable buildings. After the depressing, but salutary, example of county hall—just five miles to the west along the River Thames—we really cannot allow the possibility of Greenwich suffering a similar fate.
I made it clear on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill that I believe it to be incumbent on us to ensure that the legislation guarantees that only suitable and appropriate users can be considered. In this context, a continuing MOD use of the site should not be ruled out. We all know of the long and historic tradition linking Greenwich and the Royal Navy. Many people throughout Britain—not least those with naval connections—feel strongly that that link should be maintained.
There must be no question of an unseemly rush to dispose of those magnificent buildings. On the contrary, we should concentrate on ensuring an appropriate and continuing British use of the site—a use which, if at all possible, should maintain the historic link between Greenwich and the Royal Navy.
8.58 pm
Mr. John Spellar: The debate started with an unrecorded aside from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the currently topical subject of beards. I am not sure whether that was the result of follicle jealousy, but it seemed singularly inappropriate in a debate on the Royal Navy. That apart, it has been a constructive, useful and wide-ranging debate. Especially welcome was the positive announcement on procurement policy by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, to which I shall return later. It was a little spoilt by his need to use a soundbite, but I partly understand that: it provided some covering fire for a sensible shift on procurement policy and will probably keep him out of trouble with the Whips Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) discussed the wider strategic perspectives. We do not spend enough time examining that aspect, and perhaps we should give it broader consideration. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber raised the problem of overstretch, which we all acknowledge to be a service-wide problem—especially with the increasing commitments in Bosnia, including the need for rest and recreation. I know that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is alert to those problems.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke powerfully about the future of the dockyards in their areas and the strong local and community involvement in the rapidly changing circumstances there. As usual, they were effective advocates for their communities.

1201
Several hon. Members were concerned about the order for the type 23 frigates, especially the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The shipbuilding industry, as Ministers know, anxiously awaits the type 23 decision. That anxiety has been increased by the continuing delays in making the announcement. As the Minister knows, the decision was expected before Christmas. It is a matter of regret that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was not able to make an announcement today. Given that this debate is a fairly movable feast, it is unfortunate that the decision was not brought forward or the debate postponed for a while until a Minister could make an announcement rather than saying that it would be made in a few weeks. We hope that that will not become a trade mark of Ministers' statements in such debates.
It is vital that an announcement should be made in the immediate future so that the yards and their suppliers and employees know what is going on. Hon. Members have referred to the dangers of protective notices and imminent redundancies as the work load starts to ease off and a gap appears in the work programme. I am sure that the Minister accepts that and I hope that we can have strong assurances of an early announcement.
Such an announcement is especially important because there is concern about how many type 23 vessels will be ordered. It is said that it will be up to three, but there is uncertainty as to whether it will be one, two or three.
Mr. Peter Griffiths indicated assent.
Mr. Spellar: I see that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, who raised that in his speech, agrees. It concerns Hampshire and Glasgow Members and has considerable implications for British industry.
Concern has also been expressed at the delay in ordering the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be more forthcoming in his reply. We cannot adopt a policy of wait and see.
My hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised the question of Trident with firm personal conviction. Mention of Trident has a Pavlovian effect on Ministers and there was considerable noise in support. Their problems on defence policy make them look for fabricated differences in the Opposition. For years, it has been clear that Government supporters took far more notice of Labour party conference decisions than did the Labour leadership. Now they do not even have that crumb of comfort, they grab gleefully at any Back Bencher's expression of difference with Front-Bench policy.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in 1983 and 1987 the Labour party went into general elections with leaders pledged to nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Spellar: That is exactly my point. Now, without even that crumb of comfort, the Government try to draw mock differences between Back-Bench and Front-Bench Labour Members. It is good knockabout stuff, but it is not a serious way to develop a national defence policy. I understand why the Minister grabs at that comfort: he is under huge attack from his Back Benches over the
1202
Government's policy on defence. The people who have taken Labour party policy on defence cuts most seriously are the Government. They implemented the cuts that the Labour leadership refused to accept.
On a practical matter, now that the French have ended their tests, have the Government considered two lessons? First, should they have been so tied to the position taken by the French in the first place? Secondly, as we move to a test ban, with modern super-computing providing the possibility of simulation, do we have the capacity in this country to undertake such work? If not, what provision are we making to achieve that?
I shall now turn to a most significant and welcome statement made by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement when he opened the debate. He reaffirmed the policy of the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who gave evidence to the joint Select Committee on Defence and Trade and Industry last May and said that
"the Ministry of Defence needs to continue to give due consideration to the possible consequences of procurement decisions for the defence industrial base and I am happy to affirm this once again."
That issue is also outlined in the Labour party policy document, "Strategy for a Secure Future," which states:
"The defence industrial base, with its state-of-the-art manufacturing processes and its development of cutting-edge technologies, is a strategic part of Britain's overall industrial capability."
Unfortunately there seems to have been a bit of a drift in Government policy. On 9 January the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said of the white vehicles contract that
"the criteria for the selection of the winning bid is based on best value for money, which includes technical and commercial competence."—[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 104.]
On 11 January the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), said of the field ambulance order that
"contracts … will quite rightly be based primarily on value for money and operational considerations."—[Official Report, 11 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 295.]
Those are important and necessary considerations, but they do not provide a total picture. As the Minister rightly stressed in his opening remarks, we must also include the maintenance of the defence industrial base and the maintenance of defence technologies, which are important both for the industrial and economic future of this country and for our ability to supply and maintain our armed forces with their equipment.
Welcome as the words are, we also need deeds. There was the recent case of the Army field ambulances. The final decision was welcome, but we must question why such a campaign was necessary to persuade the Government that they should be buying a world-class, world-beating British product.
Another case will come up shortly involving the helicopter flying school. Privatisation of the initial training for all three services in basic helicopter flying is a dogmatic exercise. It seems odd that, as we have just discussed, we can run a tri-service staff college but not a tri-service training school in basic helicopter flying. I should have thought that it would be an ideal opportunity, especially as the staff and facilities would come from different services.

1203
The implications on the industrial side are also considerable. Indeed, they are worse. I have asked the Minister of State for Defence Procurement about the purchasing of helicopters for the operation. The spread of helicopter manufacture means that the helicopters will almost certainly come from abroad, given the bids that have come in. If it had been a Government contract, we would have been able to negotiate an offset arrangement; as the contract is private, the Ministry of Defence believes that that will not be possible, so more work will be lost to Britain.
When the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replies, he should tell bidders for the helicopter flying school that there should be some British content arising from the bids or there will not be a contract. We should start playing the game like other countries for once, and start by talking and acting tough, particularly with the Americans, who have had about $5 billion worth of orders from us in recent months. We should make it clear to them that we want to see offset or orders in return for our purchases.
With regard to Ministry of Defence properties, my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, backed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), made a strong case about housing—a subject on which he has campaigned effectively for a long time, as the Minister knows.
In the Army debate a couple of weeks ago, we mentioned the role of Mr. David Hart in relation to MOD properties. That seemed to make the Secretary of State extremely excitable at the time. Mr. Hart, who has been the subject of recent television programmes and press comment, appears to be the shadowy figure who weaves through many stories, to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has described him as the Rasputin of the situation.
The sale of MOD housing is an extraordinary exercise. I hope that we are now at the bottom of the housing market, but no one, unless they were under intense financial pressure from banks, would sell property at such a time. If a private company undertook such actions, it would send out warning signals that would lead to the calling of a meeting of creditors at a moment's notice. Having sold at the bottom of the market, we shall then rent the properties back at private market rents. As a result of Government policy, those rents have increased far faster than general inflation while house prices have fallen, so we are selling at the bottom to rent back, with rent reviews every five years.
I seek the Minister's response to suggestions that have been made that although the money from the sale will go directly to the Treasury, the rent will come from the defence budgets, so that in effect there will be another long-term defence cut. We are told that the rents charged to tenants will not be affected, but how long will it be before the hard-eyed men in the Treasury notice that there is a difference between the rents charged to service men and the market rent that the MOD pays to the landlord and start trying to claw back the difference?
What about people who buy properties? The discounted sales scheme for service men is being undermined. Since that scheme started, about 5,000 service men and their families have benefited. We were told by the MOD that
1204
many of those sales are heavily oversubscribed. Nevertheless, as a result of the current exercise, the Government are considering scrapping that welcome scheme. It is yet another kick in the teeth for our troops. Interestingly enough, it flies in the face of a commitment in the Conservatives' 1992 general election manifesto—it seems that the Minister spends more time reading Labour manifestos than reading his own—to help people in the forces to save towards a home of their own. That was a fairly direct commitment, yet it is likely to be reneged on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport spoke about the number of vacancies which might be available for social housing. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement leapt in with alacrity to ask whether my hon. Friend would support the sale as a move towards that. He leapt in a little too readily, which gave me a feeling that the Government are so keen to sell off property for dogmatic reasons that they have not sought short-term, sensible improvements that would have benefited the MOD and the people who needed the housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), in his opening speech for the Labour party, referred to the Government's slogan about waste into weapons. He rightly turned that around to point out that in many cases weapons have been turned into waste. That has been especially the case with Navy stores. Navy spares worth millions of pounds have been left to rust and deteriorate in the open air as the storage depot closure programme gets under way. Storage bases are being run down and the material is being transferred to the Portsmouth depot. Unfortunately, the base is unable to cope with the spate of submarine and ship spares flooding in, so the material is being diverted to Colerne, near Bath, which is being used as an overspill site. People who have been there say that there are piles of expensive, sophisticated equipment stretching for a quarter of a mile around the depot, and that they are 6 ft high in places. We understand that the storage facilities are below even minimum standards. Hangars are infested with fleas and pigeon dung. Gear worth millions has probably been damaged as a result. Surveys and inspections, including shot-blasting, will be needed to restore much of it. That is not an effective, efficient operation, but a dash towards dogma.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) mentioned the Royal Naval college in Greenwich. Both described the splendid site and I shall certainly not attempt to improve on their eloquence. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich also drew attention to many of the questions that surround the setting up of the tri-service college and its concentration on the site at Camberley, rather than on the splendid site at Greenwich. He posed some serious questions which require answers, especially from a Government who would sell off the Admiralty arch and other bits of our history.
It is right to respect, preserve and commemorate our history. On a slightly more positive note, therefore, may I suggest in passing that the Ministry of Defence starts to give preliminary consideration to how the country will commemorate the bi-centenary of the battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson? That could bring together the whole history of the Navy and this country as an island nation and a naval power.

1205
Many hon. Members have mentioned the Merchant Marine and the problems that it faces. It is all very well to go to the Baltic Exchange when we have an international agreement for a multinational force and a United Nations mandate, but it might be rather different if we were more isolated and had less agreement about an operation. In a situation such as the Falklands war, for instance, we might find ourselves far less able to mount an operation following the rundown of the Merchant Marine.
In summary, today's debate has been positive throughout, albeit somewhat marred by the Government's failure to announce a number of decisions. That failure should not detract from the positive side of the Minister's opening statement. Hon. Members who take an interest in defence will be pleased to build on those positive aspects, which will be welcomed by the defence industry and its employees. We look forward to positive implementation for the good of Britain's defence industry base and our armed forces, not least the Royal Navy.
9.16 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): This has been an interesting and important debate, as is generally the case when the House discusses the armed forces, but I regret that both sides of the House should be so poorly attended when we debate such an important matter.
Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
I intend to concentrate on the Royal Navy for the greater part of my speech and on the general issues that have been raised tonight. I hope that hon. Members will allow me the indulgence of leaving any specific points on procurement or the other responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to be dealt with separately by letter.
I am naturally grateful for the opportunity that our annual debate affords me to pay a genuine and whole-hearted tribute to the sensational professionalism, expertise, enthusiasm and dynamism of the Royal Navy. I know, as I hope most hon. Members know, that the senior service is held in the greatest esteem and affection at home. I also know, and it is made very clear to me on my travels overseas, that the Royal Navy's exceptional qualities and skills are truly admired, and in many cases envied, around the world.
We are very proud that the Royal Navy remains the envy of our allies and never fails to impress with its skill, tradition and spirit wherever it goes and whatever it does. I for one am immensely proud to work with what I consider to be the best navy in the world. I salute all the men and women who serve in it with such distinction and I want especially to mark out their families and loved ones who support them heroically and with understanding, true patience and constant fortitude. I congratulate the Navy on the wholly admirable way that it sets about looking after its service families.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement observed in his excellent opening speech, the past 12 months have, once again, been an extraordinarily busy time for the Royal Navy. Once more, the Queen's ships have been deployed to all corners of the world. As we meet here tonight, the white ensign is flying on Her
1206
Majesty's ships, which are carrying out important duties in pursuit of British interests from the West Indies to Hong Kong and from the north of Scotland to the Antarctic. Sailors and Royal Marines are performing arduous tasks, often in demanding conditions, all over the world.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement commented on the importance of the Royal Navy's exceptional contribution to our presence in the former Yugoslavia, and on all the work done thus far to bring matters to their present rather satisfactory—I hope—state of affairs. I am sure that the House will join me in sending our very best wishes to all our ships and their companies currently deployed in the Adriatic and surrounding waters—HMS Illustrious, HMS London, RFA Fort Grange and RFA Olwen, which form the carrier task group and which have done such sterling work. I want to refer also to HMS Brazen and HMS Beaver in the two NATO standing forces.
Nor should we forget the Royal Fleet Auxiliary resource in Split, or the fleet air arm and other units ashore, which are supporting the NATO implementation force in which the UK is playing a truly heroic role. I want to pay particular tribute to 845 naval air squadron, which completed three years of non-stop operations at Split on 11 November last year. B flight of that squadron has supplied four Sea Kings and crews in back-to-back operations. It has made a formidable contribution, and I send the squadron my warmest best wishes and profound congratulations.
The Royal Navy has made, and is still making, a distinguished contribution in the former Yugoslavia. All who have taken part in these crucial operations can look back on their efforts with satisfaction. I am conscious that the work of the Royal Navy in this theatre has not grabbed the headlines in quite the same way as our tremendous land contribution. Its importance, however, cannot be overstated. It has been a significant factor in helping to open the way to a lasting settlement. Indeed, our effort in the former Yugoslavia is a tri-service operation, which is an increasingly common feature of modern military operations that is reflected in our decision to create the new permanent joint headquarters, with all that that will mean for the increased efficiency and conduct of future operations.
I should like also to pay tribute to the Armilla patrol, which has recently entered its 16th year of continuous operations in the Gulf. Throughout, the Armilla patrol—currently maintained by HMS Brilliant and HMS Chatham, supported by RFA Brambleleaf—has provided great reassurance to our good friends and shipping in the area. I recently visited our good friends the Bahrainis and had the chance to visit HMS Chatham and to entertain the Bahrainis on board. She is a remarkable ship with a superb crew, and I am pleased to report that she has had a successful deployment. Her presence in some of the Gulf state ports was a tremendous attraction over Christmas and a tremendous promotion of British interests. I particularly thank Captain Paul Boissier and his splendid crew for all that they have done in the past few months.
I should like also to praise the work of the West Indies guard ship—currently HMS Brave, assisted by her accompanying RFA tanker Oakleaf. The WIGS has provided invaluable assistance to our dependent territories

1207
in the Caribbean and represents clear evidence of the Government's absolute determination to support our interests around the world.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement spoke of the humanitarian assistance given by the WIGS in response to various acts of God last year. I should like to commend her marvellous work in humanitarian assistance of another sort—countering the drugs menace. In recent months, HMS Brave has had two notable successes in this regard. As hon. Members may be aware, in December, she intercepted a suspect boat off Jamaica, which was found to be carrying a cargo of drugs with an estimated street value of £20 million. Again, last month, she intercepted a vessel acting suspiciously, causing its crew to jettison their cargo which, on recovery, turned out to be 40 bales of cocaine with an estimated street value of more than £90 million. It is believed to be the largest ever single drugs haul on the high seas. Such successes, and the deterrent that the presence of the WIGS provides, play an important part—with our allies in the region—in the international fight to keep drugs off the streets.
Elsewhere, the Royal Navy goes about its duties with the quiet—and sometimes not so quiet—professionalism that we have come to expect from all of our armed forces. In the south Atlantic, HMS Westminster is about to be relieved by HMS Northumberland as a deterrent naval presence, together with HMS Leeds Castle and RFA Gold Rover. At the same time, HMS Endurance is conducting her 1995–96.Antarctic season patrol.
And somewhere far out in the deep waters of the oceans one of our strategic missile submarines is providing the ultimate, independent guarantee of our security. Five of our nuclear hunter-killer submarines are also at sea on various tasks.
Closer to home, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement spoke of the new challenges the fishery protection squadron is meeting so admirably in the Irish box. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) also mentioned that squadron. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to see it at work last year and I was most impressed not only by its equipment and the enthusiasm of its commanders and sailors, but by the excellent rapport that the Royal Navy still enjoys with our fishermen—despite what the tabloid press may say. In spite of some of the more extreme words uttered by some fishermen, the Royal Navy and the fishing community are very good friends and get on very well.
Several ships and royal fleet auxiliaries are today participating in a major NATO anti-submarine exercise off the south-west approaches in conjunction with allied forces and with RAF Nimrods. That is another fine example of the successful co-operation across service and national boundaries at which the Royal Navy excels. Around the coast of Britain, other ships are engaged in training or trials. They include ships undergoing operational sea training off Plymouth, which today will be engaged in the regular Thursday war.
Only a week ago, I had the opportunity to stand on the bridge of HMS Montrose and see at first hand one of those Thursday wars being fought. One cannot fail to be tremendously impressed by the exceptional skills and
1208
enthusiasm with which our young men and women respond to the very demanding challenges of that intense training, which exercises a wide range of capabilities in the most realistic and formidable setting. It is absolutely essential preparation for real operational deployments around the world and a mark of the Navy's continued commitment to maintaining extremely high standards of readiness and competence.
I do not want to forget the immense contribution that the Royal Marines make to the interests of this country. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was right to pay tribute to them earlier. At this moment, much of 3 Commando Brigade is engaged in its annual winter training deployment to Norway, which is important to the Royal Marines specialist cold weather warfare capability; and 40 Commando, Royal Marines has recently deployed to Northern Ireland for a six-month tour as the East Tyrone Battalion, following the deployment of 4/5 Commando to Fermanagh last year.
While the developing peace process and its very welcome ceasefire has reduced the immediate threat, the Royal Marines continue to assist the Army in providing support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the Province. The Royal Marines will form an important and core part of the joint rapid deployment force announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year. That force, which will be held at an extremely high state of readiness, will be a major enhancement to our ability to project power quickly in support of British interests overseas—a role for which the Royal Marines are wholly and admirably suited.
I shall now try to deal with some of the more general points that have been raised in the debate. In an interesting speech, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made a number of points which centred around an incessant and rather meaningless mantra: the call for a defence review. I do not think that we need to bore the House any more tonight with that.
There is not a shadow of a doubt that all three services have been through a very difficult period. They have been through a period of considerable turbulence after the changes that have resulted from the end of the cold war, "Options for Change" and the defence cost studies. The changes were not about cutting defence, but about cutting our costs.
I must have misheard the hon. Member for Torfaen. I thought he said that he believed that the Royal Military school of music would be moving into temporary quarters. That is not correct. It will move to its new, permanent, quarters at Portsmouth by mid-April, which is on time. There is no question of the school going into temporary quarters. The move will save £3 million a year in infrastructure costs, which is not insignificant.
In relation to the Upholders, we await the decision of the Canadian Government. Meanwhile, we continue to discuss the affair with other friendly Governments who have shown an interest. The hon. Member for Torfaen also mentioned the Reserve Forces Bill, which will come to the House soon. I know that it will command all-party support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who is a tremendous and doughty supporter of the Royal Navy, made an admirable speech in which he made much of the question of Wrens at sea.

1209
I wholly endorse and support all that he said about them. There were quite plainly some initial difficulties when the policy was introduced, but it is working well—even if rather unevenly every now and then for reasons of which my hon. Friend will be more aware than most.
There are about 700 female officers and ratings in 25 Royal Navy ships. I noted my hon. Friend's point about the need for women to be promoted through the ranks. As time passes, as the rank structure evolves and as their shipboard skills evolve, I am sure that the ladies will roar through. I entirely share the sentiments that he expressed about the splendid contribution made by our people in the Royal Navy. I am grateful, and I know that they will be grateful, for what he said about them.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) must surely be the Navy's pin-up. Indeed, she must be all the services' pin-up because of the marvellous support that she gives all three services. I was trying to think of how we can best mark that. We should have the hon. Lady sculpted in wood and put on the bow of one of our more splendid and formidable battleships. She made an admirable speech in which she dealt with the matters that are always close to her heart.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement told me that he always greatly admired the way in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West dealt with her constituency interests. Her constituency has no doubt been through a very difficult time, and I know that my hon. Friend will deal with the points that she made when he speaks to her or writes to her.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West made a reference to morale in the Navy. That is always a matter of concern. High morale is very important, particularly in a service that is undoubtedly operating at a very high strike rate. Our people are extremely busy, they are away a great deal of the time and they are doing a formidable job. From my extensive contact and business with the Royal Navy, my impression is that morale is very high, but plainly it is not something that one would ever take for granted. One of the reasons why morale is very high in the Royal Navy is that it has a high standard of leadership and commitment—qualities which play an important part in maintaining high morale. However, I note what the hon. Lady said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made what I can only describe as a splendid speech which has done much good for everyone who heard it, as it will for everyone who hears it on Radio 4 tomorrow morning. I hope that Radio 4 broadcasts the whole speech. It was marvellous. Anyone who listens to it tomorrow will know that if Members of Parliament were on performance pay, my hon. Friend would deserve a substantial pay rise just for making us feel much better about ourselves. I warmly endorse the views that he expressed. If I may say so, his comments come very well from a person in whose veins flows the wine of the Navy.
The Navy is at the core of my hon. Friend's life. His father was a distinguished and gallant sailor and my hon. Friend is a graduate of the Royal Naval college at Dartmouth. As he said, he joined the Navy twice before he was 20—and not many people have done that. He spoke with real feeling and understanding about the Navy and it was a pleasure to listen to him.
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the Warship Preservation Trust and the work of our former esteemed and revered colleague, Sir
1210
Philip Goodhart. Like my hon. Friend, I am constantly bombarded with the most admirable and succinct memos from Sir Philip on various matters concerning warship preservation. Although we can give only limited help, there is no doubt that it is an important subject. My father-in-law, Sir John Smith, was the architect of the saving of HMS Warrior—a remarkable preservation project—which is berthed beside HMS Victory, creating a fantastic centre of the history of the Royal Navy and our maritime history.
As my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire and for Twickenham and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, British naval history is one of the most glorious and triumphant records of our past and it is incumbent on us to do all that we can to ensure that it is properly remembered.
Several hon. Members mentioned the royal yacht. We have received a number of proposals on the future of HMY Britannia following her decommissioning, and I can truthfully say that no decision has yet been taken. The Government are actively considering whether to replace HMY Britannia and an announcement will be made in due course. I take particular note of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), who has had to leave the Chamber. My hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham and for South Staffordshire were among those who mentioned HMY Britannia. I am sorry not to be more forthcoming, but I am not yet in a position to do so. These are not weasel words; they are completely truthful.
Mr. Jamieson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Minister is moving away from replying to the debate, may I ask you whether it is the habit and practice of the House that hon. Members who participate in debates are present at the start of the debate to hear the speeches of the Minister and the Opposition spokesman and attend the winding-up speeches? Are you aware that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was not here for the opening speeches, came in a few minutes before his own speech and left a few minutes afterwards? He has now done the Minister the gross discourtesy of not being here for his winding-up speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It is not for the occupant of the Chair to order anyone to be here at any time. It is, as the hon. Gentleman observes, a courtesy to be present, but there may be good reasons why a particular Member is not present and I certainly would not wish to adjudicate on that.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was a typically spiteful and pointless remark by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). Those hon. Members who are not here now said in their speeches that they would be unable to stay. They all did me the courtesy of giving me a note to say they would not be here.
Greenwich was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham and for South Staffordshire and the hon. Member for Greenwich. Quite plainly, we all agree on the remarkable importance of the buildings. The hon. Member for Greenwich and I have discussed the matter on many occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, who has played an enormously distinguished role in heritage, will know that no words of

1211
mine or anyone else can do justice to what is truly the most remarkable collection of buildings in Britain. There is a consensus on that and on what needs to be done.
I am aware of the many points that have been made from the Opposition Front Bench on these matters. I know that some parts of my letter have been queried. I have noted all those queries and they will be taken up in detail in a letter, copies of which will be sent to members of the Opposition Front-Bench team. I would welcome discussions on it with hon. Members, along with my officials.
I hope that all those who have spoken in the debate will take comfort from the formation of the Greenwich advisory group, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins. It consists of Lord Farringdon, Dame Jennifer Jenkins, Lord Sainsbury and Jocelyn Stevens, who have been good enough to give of their time to advise the Government on the expressions of interest received and on the future use and management of the college. The group is considering the way forward. It is paying special attention to the extent to which the proposals are sympathetic to the status of the buildings and to their wide enjoyment by the public. It will take account, I am sure, of all the many points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the absolutely fundamental and unshakeable requirement that the use of the buildings should be seemly, fitting, suitable, dignified and entirely in keeping with their history and traditions.
Dr. David Clark: Will the advisory group have, any direct or indirect input through the Minister to the Select Committee that is considering the Armed Forces Bill, especially clause 26? If there were such a means of passing the group's views to the Committee, that might be a helpful way forward.
Mr. Soames: The advisory group is advising the Government on all matters to do with the future lease of the Greenwich college. As the hon. Gentleman knows—he is a most distinguished and helpful member of the Committee—clause 26 will be considered when we are received, I am sure with due pomp and circumstance, by the hon. Member for Greenwich, who will be standing wearing a top hat waiting for the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on the steps of Greenwich pier. I am sure that all members of the Committee look forward to visiting Greenwich. I hope that the advisory group will have something helpful and useful to put before us.
Mr. Raynsford: I do not have a top hat.
Mr. Soames: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is issued with one through central stores.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—the hon. Member for Devonport forgot to mention him—was good enough to tell me that he would not be able to stay in the Chamber until the end of the debate; he had to catch a train back to his constituency. It was a delight to welcome to our debate a former officer in the intelligence corps. He lent tone to what was otherwise a vulgar brawl on the Opposition Benches. He welcomed the formation of the naval support command and then took a typical Liberal Democrat position by criticising its implementation.
1212
I say to the hon. Gentleman in his absence, and to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who similarly is not in his place—he has represented with courage and consistency the interests of his constituents—that Ministers and the Navy are entirely confident that we have made the right decision on the naval support command. We look forward to prompt implementation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber for his supportive words on the Navy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South spoke principally about Britannia, an issue with which I hope I have dealt. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made a formidable speech. He is always well informed. His speech was connected with procurement matters, which I know my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have heard and that he will deal with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)—
Mr. Jamieson: Where is he?
Mr. Soames: He is the one with the hair, or the other one with the hair. My hon. Friend has gone for an appointment with his hair consultant. He was good enough to tell me before he left that some minor technical adjustment was required to that technological wonder which sits astride his splendid brow.
My hon. Friend made an extremely effective and efficient speech, which was dignified by its intelligence and by its brevity.
The hon. Member for Devonport raised a number of questions, which I propose to gloss over.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) made, as usual, an extremely well-informed and powerful speech, and raised a number of important issues concerning his constituency. I shall ensure that they are reported to my hon. Friend the Minister and dealt with.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) did not tell me that he would not be here for the wind-up, and therefore I am somewhat constrained in what I may say about him and to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he is such a dear man—he is also completely barking and represents, as we all know, the true voice of the Labour party on defence. He is living evidence of the fact that one simply cannot trust the Labour party on defence—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) can wave his hands around like an out-of-work conjuror, but the great silent majority in this country, as he will come to discover, know that one cannot trust the Labour party on defence.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent is the genuine and authentic voice of the Labour party on defence. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, the hon. Gentleman is a worthy and true inheritor of his distinguished predecessor in the House. He made a speech that was utterly sincere, absolutely straightforward and very brave given the unbelievable volte face that his own party has made, almost en masse, although one knows perfectly well that it does not believe a bloody word of it. The fact of the matter is that if the Labour party—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is on very good form tonight, but he has just gone a shade too far.
Mr. Soames: I am extremely sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I fancied myself enjoying a cocktail with you in a wardroom and went a touch too far. I apologise.

1213
It remains the truth that, had Labour won any of the past four elections, we simply would not have had Trident. Labour would have had it scrapped. We would have been without our minimum independent nuclear deterrent which is the ultimate guarantee of our national security and makes a significant contribution to NATO's strategy of war prevention. The Labour party should hoist that fact aboard.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) also speaks with absolute sincerity and real passion about this matter and really minds about it. Nuclear weapons remain an important, integral and essential part of our defence, despite the end of the cold war.
I see the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on the Labour Benches. He is another hon. Gentleman with a beard and wears a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge. One does not see them any more. They have all gone, because there is no room for a rose and a CND badge.
If, in years to come, the Trident system were found not to be suitable for the task that it had to perform, and there still remained, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, a threat of nuclear war, I am sure that, in answer to the point that was raised, we would go ahead with the procurement of another system to ensure that we retained our own minimum independent nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Cohen: Would the Minister be prepared to order a replacement for Trident, at huge cost, which I outlined in my speech, if it meant that the conventional Navy would be run down as a result, which could happen?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman can conjure any form of fantasy out of what he speculates, but the whole Trident programme costs 2.5 per cent. of the defence budget over the procurement period. It is probably the greatest technological achievement of all time in terms of what it has done, and its cost and value for money are quite outstanding. If we needed to procure another system in years to come, I have no doubt that we would examine that closely, and if the threat were great enough, I am quite sure that any Conservative Government would ensure that our people were properly defended. All the beards and the CND badge wearers can shake their heads until they are blue—or red—in the face, but we know that Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire made an altogether entirely welcome, but unexpected, speech. He came in with the honourable intention of supporting the hon. Member for Greenwich, who shares his concerns about Greenwich. As always, my hon. Friend gave us an eloquent and invaluable lesson in history, which I watched the few Labour Members who were present absorbing with interest, as none of them had ever heard it before.
I am satisfied that the fishery protection squadron is extremely well equipped and does a superb job; I am also satisfied that the Royal Naval Reserve has implemented a sensible, achievable, realistic and necessary recruiting drive to increase its current strength. My hon. Friend was right to say that it is an extremely important part of the Royal Navy. Part of its excellence lies in the fact that much of its training is now individually planned; moreover, much of it takes place at sea, involving service on operational naval ships. That gives trainees much more experience, and increases their skills in the use of equipment.
1214
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) on joining the armed forces scheme. I am sure that he will enjoy it, and that the Navy has enjoyed showing him some of its equipment. He made a thoughtful and interesting speech. It is difficult to argue with someone who has visited various ships and has heard opinions expressed on those ships, but in my view people in the Navy almost never whinge. They are almost unique in that regard. Of course, they express themselves forcefully when they find the need to do so.
It is true that our ships are tautly manned. There is a disparity in the numbers; numbers have been forced down, and the ships are very busy. But, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, much of the technology and equipment on them allow leaner manning. There is no great merit in employing more people than are needed. Nevertheless, I think that the Navy has now reached a point at which it cannot cut manning any further.
I was grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about homosexuality in the armed forces. As the House will know, Ministers commissioned a paper on the subject, which we shall submit to the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill. We have not yet seen that paper, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it remains our policy to exclude homosexuals from the armed forces—not in connection with a moral judgment, but purely because of the special nature of service life, which, as the hon. Gentleman now knows very well, is completely different from civilian life.
As a Minister, I am constrained by what I may or may not say, and it is impossible for me to agree in public with what the hon. Gentleman said about the European Court. [Interruption.] I mean that in a very caring way.
The hon. Member for Leyton—whom we all love, and without whom any debate involving the nuclear deterrent would risk being called a dismal failure—made his usual splendid speech, full of marvellous charges and figures none of which remotely stands the test of time. He speaks with passion and clarity, and I accept that his argument is at the core of Labour party thinking. He represents a substantial majority of party members, and it was important for us to hear the true voice of the Labour party tonight rather than the sham circus on the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Greenwich has just left. I hope that he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Devonport, or he will get a frightful rocket. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has also left."] So he has. I hope that the hon. Member for Devonport asked you if he could leave, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to say something about his speech, but, as he has gone, there is not much point in my doing so. I was saving it for the end as a bit of a surprise.
The hon. Member for Greenwich made an extremely well-informed speech, as he always does. He feels very strongly about the matter; he also feels that the Ministry of Defence has not handled it in a way that would serve the best interests of his constituency. There is still a good deal of discussion between us, and my colleagues and I will listen carefully to, and deal seriously with, the points that he has made.
As usual, the hon. Member for Warley, West made an extremely competent winding-up speech, with which we found ourselves in total disagreement, and he failed at any

1215
stage to deal with the essential interests of the Royal Navy, or, as far I could see, to talk about the role, deployment or anything else of the Navy.
With regard to French nuclear tests, the French have responsibilities as a nuclear power for ensuring the safety and reliability of their weapons. President Chirac has decided on the scientific advice available to him that the series of tests was utterly essential before France could sign a comprehensive test ban treaty. We support the French in their action. The important thing is to achieve international agreement on an end to all nuclear tests. France has made clear its commitment to a comprehensive test ban treaty, and we hope that a treaty will be signed in the first half of 1996.
All that I have said tonight provides little more than a snapshot of royal naval activities, but it gives a very clear insight into the range of tasks that face the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel. I am only too well aware of the demands that the present level of commitments places on all those in the Royal Navy at all levels, and especially their families. However, I believe that the families understand the importance of the work—indeed, I know that they understand it.
Whether it is a life-saving search-and-rescue mission off the south coast in filthy weather, helping to restore essential services in hurricane-struck Anguilla, providing reassurance to remote dependencies in the south Atlantic, or the fisheries squadron looking after our fishermen, there are few other walks of life that can offer the challenges, opportunities, excitement and, above all, profound personal satisfaction of doing one's duty that the Royal Navy provides day in and day out.
Whenever I visit the Royal Navy, I am always truly struck by the wonderful spirit and—almost always—first-class morale of the people whom I meet, even at a time when the level of our peacetime commitments and obligations is higher than ever before. That is testimony to the training and character of those who serve in the Navy at all levels, and above all—let no one forget it—to the qualities of those who lead them. Without those people, all the high-tech equipment in the world would be completely useless.
The Government fully recognise the value of the naval personnel who serve us all so splendidly, and we maintain our whole-hearted commitment to balanced forces who are well equipped, well trained and well motivated. We need to appreciate that the changes in the strategic setting since the end of the cold war have, of course, caused turbulence and difficulties—we have never attempted to say otherwise—but that is now largely behind us, and I hope that we are now steaming into calmer water again.
1216
I take enormous comfort from the amazing flexibility that has been shown by all the services during the period of change. We cannot and do not take that for granted, for it is that same flexibility and resourcefulness that equip the Royal Navy so splendidly for the myriad of tasks that it carries out.
I also warmly congratulate all those thousands of civilians who support the Royal Navy so loyally and tremendously, be they in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the naval bases, the depots, the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere. They are often overlooked and they should not be. They play a vital part in the conduct of naval business and I greatly praise their role.
There has been much ill-informed speculation and comment recently about the Royal Navy's ability today to fight the battles of the past. The Labour party can carp on that theme as much as it wants, but in doing so it reveals its complete misunderstanding of modern warfare. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that we do not need to fight past battles again by ensuring that the lessons of recent conflicts are enshrined in our training, doctrine and equipment.
We well appreciate the importance in this ever-changing uncertain world of being able to project power and exert influence over great distances. If anything, that is more important than it was during the height of the cold war, as the range and spread of the potential operations that we face are that much more diverse.
The United Kingdom continues to play a major part in world affairs, out of all proportion to its size. That we carry such influence is due in no small way to the real respect in which our armed forces are held. The Royal Navy has made a fantastic contribution to that—past and present.
Today, of 26 available destroyers or frigates—the workhorses of the fleet—21 are deployed on, preparing for or recovering from operational tasks, and the remainder are engaged in high-priority trials or training. That shows how very hard our senior service is working, and speaks volumes for the qualities of all those who serve in it. We place the greatest importance on all the Royal Navy's capabilities, and maintaining a strong and effective Navy, lean in the tail but with razor-sharp teeth.
I am sure that it greatly reassures the House to know that the Royal Navy is protecting our vital interests—a Navy that meets the challenges that it faces head on, and overcomes them with skill, hard work and good humour, for which it is renowned the world over. We are indeed truly fortunate to have such a fantastic and marvellous Navy.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Downham Fire Station
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
9.59 pm
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Before I begin—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Lady continues, I ask those who are leaving to do so quietly, out of courtesy to her.
Mrs. Prentice: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I hesitated—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
Mrs. Prentice: I should like to begin a debate on the fire service by paying tribute to the two firefighters, Kevin Lane and Steve Griffin, who lost their lives today in a tragic incident in Gwent. I am sure that the House would wish to send our condolences to their families and to the family of young Daniel Hartford, whom they tried so courageously to save.
I want to raise the question of the future of Downham fire station, in my constituency, and also to mention the possible closure of three other fire stations in London and the withdrawal of 22 further appliances. I believe that all that will have a serious effect on the quality of service that the London fire brigade can offer Londoners.
I am distressed that I should have to raise the issue at all in the House, because, when I was the Labour candidate for Lewisham, East in 1991, Downham fire station was threatened with closure. We fought alongside the local community group to keep it open—and we won. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) visited the station with me, as he was then the shadow Home Secretary.
I shall mention again one of the issues that we raised then—the definition of risk categories. That will not be the main thrust of my argument, which will be about keeping the fire station open and raising the standard spending assessments for the fire service in general, but I hope to show that, if those categories were redefined, it would support that main argument.
Downham fire station is in Reigate road, in the centre of the Downham estate, a large inter-war housing estate. Many of the people who live there have done so since the estate was built, and it has the largest percentage of pensioner population in Lewisham borough. More than 30 per cent. of the borough's pensioner-only households live in Downham. In fact, one in four of Downham's residents is a pensioner, compared with 21 per cent. in the borough as a whole and a similar percentage in London as a whole, and compared with fewer than one in five in the country as a whole. Downham is also the area in the borough with the highest percentage of people with long-term illnesses.
There are seven primary schools in the immediate area, as well as two secondary schools and two schools for children with special educational needs. I am aware that
1218
the fire authority takes the needs of schools into account, but Downham is in risk category C. That means that only one fire engine is required to arrive within eight to 10 minutes. Had it been in category A, it could have expected two fire engines to arrive within five minutes and another within eight minutes.
Those are the Home Office minimum attendance standards. Fortunately, the London fire service tries to send two engines to category C incidents. In other words, it tries to provide cover above the Home Office minimum standards. Surely we do not want to reduce the standard of service provided to Londoners.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the research that has been carried out by Greater Manchester fire authority, which argues for a total review of risk categorisation for the very reason she gives—that category C areas like Downham are where the greatest number of deaths occur? Does she agree that attendance times based on those risk categories determine the allocation of resources? Is it not crazy that we seem to have a system that gives more priority to the protection of property than it does to the lives of Londoners?
Mrs. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The Greater Manchester survey is very important, and I want to come back to what the Audit Commission said later.
It is quite wrong that the categories are weighted in favour of protecting property rather than lives, and I have never accepted the sense of that. It is particularly unfair given that modern buildings now incorporate sophisticated fire prevention detection features, while estates such as Downham and others in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) clearly do not. I have said, and I still hold to it, that something is not quite right when Members of Parliament here in the Palace of Westminster are in a higher-risk category than my elderly constituents in Downham.
I hope that the Minister will be aware that the Audit Commission document "In Line of Fire" has recommended that there should be a fundamental review of the levels of fire cover which would take into account the extent to which circumstances have changed and are changing. That is now a matter of some urgency.
Another point that my hon. Friend might have made is that the services that the fire service now provides are very different. It is not just about putting out fires: firemen are called to all sorts of emergencies and disasters. None of that is properly taken into account when the categories are assessed.
That is a matter of great concern, because all the evidence—as my hon. Friend has mentioned—is that it is in category C risk areas, such as the whole of Downham, where people are most at risk from injury or death from fire. Those people, and people who suffer socio-economic deprivation, are most at risk. It would seem logical that the risk categories should be weighted in their favour. I believe that it has now become a matter of the greatest urgency that they are protected, and protected well.
I should say, in fairness, that the London fire service has done its level best to do just that—it provides cover above the minimum standards set by the Home Office. But if the present funding arrangements are not changed,

1219
it will cease to provide that level of service for Londoners. The leader of the fire authority in London, Councillor Tony Ritchie, said today that he believes the cuts are inevitable, but I do not want to believe that.
The closure of Downham fire station—along with those at Shooters Hill, Manchester Square and the Barbican—as well as the loss of pumps at 22 other stations, must inevitably mean a serious reduction in service. Downham fire station takes more than 1,000 calls a year, and those calls will have to be taken up by stations elsewhere. If that is compounded by the loss of engines around the capital, the system will not be able to cope. If the system cannot cope, people will die—it is as simple and as horrifying as that.
Councillor Ritchie also said that the effects would be disastrous, but I think that that may be an understatement. The people of Downham cannot understand why, having worked together as a community to save the fire station in 1991, they should now have their safety threatened again. They are especially angry that the station is threatened with closure when £852,317 has been spent on raising the station to a proper standard.
The chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, told me in a letter:
"as a result of the works that were carried out, the asbestos problems have been remedied, better working conditions and a modern, much larger appliance room have been provided and better security afforded from the provision of new appliance room doors."
When did that happen? It happened over the past three years. Where is the sense in making such a commitment to the people of Downham if it is to be destroyed three years later?
I close by paying tribute to the people of Downham and the surrounding area, who have banded together again to protest publicly about the threat to their fire station. They have been out in the streets of Lewisham and Bromley during this cold winter, and collected more than 2,000 signatures from local people in the hope of persuading the Government that the fire station is essential. The feelings of people across the capital are such that the Fire Brigades Union has a petition with some 30,000 signatures protesting at the possible closure of the four stations.
I was in Bromley tonight speaking to a public meeting about the closures. People there asked me to ask the Minister whether he would be prepared to come back to the House, should the closures go ahead, and tell us the number of people who will have died or been seriously injured because the fire service could not reach them in the times that it now sets itself. This evening, in Ballamore road in Downham, there was a fire involving an elderly resident who might have been seriously injured but for the quickness and alertness of the local fire station.
This is a cross-party issue. I have had a note from the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who could not be here this evening, in which he said that he shares my concerns. Part of his constituency abuts Downham. However, the debate is not only about Downham but about the quality of the fire service across London. The previous chief fire officer, Mr. Clarkson, is on record as having said that he has already cut the service to the bone, and that there is no more room for cuts. He is, I believe, a Conservative nominee on the police committee in Kent, so we may presume that he is unlikely to be accused of unnecessary scaremongering.
1220
I do not want to believe that the Government want a reduction in service, or that they think that the minimum standard is adequate for areas such as Downham, given the type of population that lives there. I want to believe that even this Government will see the sense in increasing the standard spending assessment so that my constituents in Downham, and those of other hon. Members, can continue to rely on a service of the highest quality that saves lives rather than putting them at risk. I therefore plead with the Minister to reconsider the SSA for the London fire service, and ensure that people's lives in Downham and across London are not put at risk.
10.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I join the hon. Lady in expressing sadness at what happened to the two Gwent firefighters who died so courageously while attending a house fire. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to them, and sending our condolences to their families.
I understand the concern that the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) and her constituents feel about the quality of the fire service and the plans to close four stations, including Downham, which affects her constituency. However, to reduce provision in a way that fire service professionals believe to be possible without reducing necessary fire cover should not always be taken as an opportunity to say that people will die as a result. That is clearly facile, and it is slightly unworthy of the hon. Lady to jump to that conclusion and attempt to frighten her constituents unnecessarily.
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Minister is being naive or unfair to the residents of Downham. They currently receive a service that is above the minimum standards set by the Home Office. If the cuts go through, there will be a reduction in that service, and it is almost inevitable that people will suffer serious injury or death. He must recognise that.
Mr. Sackville: A balance needs to be struck in the provision made to cover each area. As the hon. Lady well knows, the authority's report, which was drawn up by professionals, not by politicians, states that the proposed reductions could be made
"without affecting the Authority's ability to meet Home Office recommended attendance times."
That is the criterion that must be used, in all fairness, all over London. It is the same criterion that is used all over the country.
We in government understand the sensitivity of the question of the provision of fire services. I echo what the Audit Commission recently said—that the fire service can be proud of its record in responding to incidents, of its high level of skills, of its very able managers and the great esteem in which it is held around the country.
The hon. Lady referred to the funding of the fire service. There are three underlying issues: whether the total public expenditure provision for local government is sufficient; given that total, how we distribute it in terms of the standard spending assessments among local authorities; and the criteria for council tax capping. The Government concluded that, for 1996–97, the total fire service element of standard spending assessment in

1221
England should be increased by £17 million—1.5 per cent.—from £1,168 million to £1,185 million. That is not as much as many of us would have liked, but in the Government's view the settlement is realistic in the context of low inflation and the requirement that pay increases in the public sector, which form a large part of the cost of fire services, should be met from increased efficiency.
The Audit Commission has found that significant savings are possible if best practice is adopted by all fire authorities. The fire service, like other public services, must operate as efficiently and effectively as possible, and it will continue to be supported in that respect by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. The Audit Commission also made a number of detailed recommendations in a management handbook that should help brigades to carry out their responsibilities in the most cost-effective manner.
The revenue support grant, which is allocated to individual fire authorities, is dependent not only on total provision, but on the distribution formula. Together with the Department of the Environment and the local authority associations, we looked carefully at the formula for the fire service element of standard spending assessments for next year. We decided that the formula should be adjusted to include factors for fire safety enforcement, fire safety education and firefighters' pensions. That is in line with recommendations by the Audit Commission.
As a result of the inclusion of those new elements and the updating of the data in the formula, the London fire and civil defence authority's standard spending assessment, including capital financing, will increase by £1.1 million. Under the proposed capping criteria, the authority will be able to set a budget for 1996–97 of up to £5.1 million more than in the current year.
Statutory responsibility for the provision of an effective and efficient fire service rests with the individual fire authorities. It is now for the London fire and civil defence authority—in the light of the settlement, the proposed criteria for council tax capping and its reserves—to decide how much to spend on the fire service for 1996–97 in order to comply with its duties under the Fire Services Act 1947 and with the nationally recommended minimum standards of cover.
If the authority should take the view that it is necessary to set a budget above the proposed capping limit in order to fulfil its statutory obligations, it is open to it to set a budget above that limit, and to make out a case for redetermination of the cap. Alternatively, it may decide to draw on its reserves, as it has done in the current year, or seek to identify further increases that may be made in efficiency without reducing fire cover below recommended standards.
I am aware that, as part of its three-year strategy, including the implementation of its fire cover review, the authority has already identified potential net savings of about £3.5 million in 1996–97, which may increase to between £6.5 million and £7.5 million per year by 1997–98.
As I said, statutory responsibility for the provision of fire services rests with the fire authority. The fire service has been a local authority service since the Fire Services Act 1947, which transferred firefighting functions from the wartime National Fire Service. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has various
1222
duties under the 1947 Act. He monitors performance through Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. He is also responsible for promoting consistent standards in training, equipment, promotion, recruitment and so on.
Under section 19 of the 1947 Act, my right hon. and learned Friend is required to be notified of the fire authority's establishment—that is to say, the number of its fire stations, fire appliances and firefighting posts—as at 1 January each year. Of special relevance to the debate is the fact that the fire authority may not reduce its establishment, although it may increase it, without his consent.
My right hon. and learned Friend has a specific and limited role in considering applications under section 19 of the 1947 Act. He grants approvals when the following conditions are satisfied.
First, the proposals must have sufficiently wide and detailed publicity, with adequate time to enable any interested party to make representations. Secondly, the representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, after taking advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services, my right hon. and learned Friend must be satisfied that the national recommended standards of fire cover will be maintained.
I emphasise that it is not the role of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to decide whether a fire authority's proposals represent the best arrangements for fire cover. Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services is available to advise the authority about that. Ultimately, however, responsibility for fire cover rests with the fire authority, which is accountable in law for the service that it provides.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sackville: I will not. If the hon. Member for Lewisham, East wishes to intervene again, I will give way.
Although there is no statutory right of consultation about section 19 applications, we have made it clear in guidance to fire authorities that we consider it desirable that they should undertake proper consultations. It has also been made clear that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider representations in addition to those already forwarded to the fire authority, provided that the person or organisation concerned forwards those representations promptly on being advised that a section 19 application is to be submitted.
The 1947 Act does not define the test of an effective and efficient fire service, which a fire authority must provide to meet normal requirements for fire cover, but it is long-standing practice to interpret that by reference to the nationally recommended minimum standards.
Those standards rest on four main standards of service, according to the risk category into which an area has been placed. The system of risk is based on the characteristics of the buildings and property in an area, and assumes for each category that a predetermined number of firefighting appliances should attend within a certain time. I should add that the standards represent the target to be achieved in normal circumstances. They dictate only the initial

1223
response to any fire in weight and speed of attack. The officer in command at an incident may at any time request additional firefighting resources.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Sackville: No, I will carry on if I may. The standards are not just nationally—
Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The Minister is right to say that the local officer can ask for more resources, but if the resources have already been removed, including the closure of a fire station and fewer pumps at nearby stations, where will that officer get those extra resources?
Mr. Sackville: Those are operational matters that have to be considered when deciding whether it is possible to make reductions in the number of appliances in an area. Those matters form part of the review, and they have not come before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I have already explained what considerations need to take place if they do, but the review has been carried out by the professionals and they have decided, as the hon. Lady has already spelled out, that Downham station and three others should be closed. That is the proposal in their review. They also recommend that other stations can be reduced from two appliances to one without reducing cover below the designated standards.
Mr. Spearing: There will be half the cover if it is reduced.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sackville: Those standards are not just nationally recommended. They are nationally agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which was established by the 1947 Act and on which the relevant fire service organisations are represented. They were also extensively reviewed by the joint committee on standards of fire cover in 1985 for the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Councils of England and Wales and for Scotland. The standards enable all those involved to be aware of the minimum level of service that they should deliver.
The Audit Commission's report called for greater local flexibility in the application of fire cover standards. The commission did not say exactly how the standards should be changed and recognised that no change should be considered without careful research. The issue is being
1224
considered by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, but it is a complex matter on which much work will be needed.
Following the 1985 review, all fire authorities in Great Britain reviewed their risk categorisation and the resources necessary to comply. Authorities update those reviews regularly to take account of local circumstances. As has already been said, London currently has 113 stations with 189 pumping appliances. Currently, 76 stations have two appliances, and 37 have one. The on-going review process in London has recommended the closure of Downham fire station and three others, and the removal of one pumping appliance from each of 22 stations which have two at present.
The review has also recommended that an additional appliance be provided at two stations that have only one, and proposes that the authority seek to develop new fire stations at Heathrow, Surrey Quays and Isle of Dogs. In respect of the proposed reductions, a report by the authority—I have already quoted this, but I will tell the House again—states that those changes can be made without affecting the authority's ability to meet Home Office recommended attendance times.
Mrs. Prentice: The chief fire officer said that, but he also said—it is only fair that the House should know—that the changes would seriously reduce the present service.
Mr. Sackville: The chief fire officer has to consider whether to recommend that the overall cover would continue to meet the minimum standards. That is a technical matter, and he must consider any proposals that the authority makes.
The proposals are reflected in the authority's review by its professional staff. In the case of Downham station, the review clearly considered that its ground could be covered by surrounding stations, while still maintaining the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover. It does not envisage that the increased work loads on surrounding stations would be unacceptable.
I am aware that the authority has consulted on the recommendations. It is not for me to comment about the consultation exercise or the recommendations in the review. That is a matter for the authority to judge. I know that the authority proposes to take decisions about the fire cover review later this month in the course of meetings. I am sure that the authority will give careful consideration to the points that the hon. Lady has raised tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Need
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the(a) organisations, (b) individuals and (c) charities that responded to the "Access to Local Government and Housing Association Tenancies" consultation paper published in January 1994 were in favour of the proposals (i) that someone should not be found to be in need of assistance where there is alternative accommodation available, (ii) that the duty of a local authority towards someone needing assistance should be to secure accommodation for a limited period

  and

  (iii) that the private rental sector be used to accommodate more homeless households. [12139]

  Mr. Clappison
  Nearly 80 per cent. of the 10,000 responses to the consultation paper were from members of the public. A further 10 per cent. were from local charities, churches and other voluntary groups. The next two largest groups of respondents were local housing authorities, 3 per cent., and housing associations, 2 per cent.

  Only one in five responses commented on any specific proposal in the consultation paper. The majority of respondents expressed opinions about the supposed effects of the proposals as a whole on households accepted as homeless under the new duty. Fewer than 5 per cent. commented on the proposal that households should be ineligible for assistance if there is alternative accommodation available. Our analysis of the responses did not yield quantitative data for (ii) and (iii).

  Tenants (Drug Dealing)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about powers available to local authorities to remove tenants convicted of drug dealing. [12564]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities have powers under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985, and ground 2 of schedule 2 to that Act, to evict tenants who have been convicted of using their homes for illegal purposes, such as drug dealing.

  Negative Equity
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households in each region are currently in negative equity. [12568]

  Mr. Clappison
  Estimates of negative equity are sensitive to underlying assumptions made, such as changes in house prices. Using the Department's house price index, adjusted for the mix of different dwelling 840
  types, it is estimated that the total number of households in negative equity in each English region in the third quarter of 1995 was as follows:

  Region

  Number of households

  South east

  383,000

  Greater London

  180,000

  South west

  112,000

  East Anglia

  50,000

  East Midlands

  40,000

  West Midlands

  89,000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  47,000

  North west

  52,000

  North

  24,000

  These estimates provide only a very broad indication of the number of households in negative equity. The suitability of the assumptions used in compiling estimates of negative equity is currently under review.

  Domestic Heating
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the percentage of extra fuel which is required to heat identical houses in(a) Rochdale and (b) the north-west of England using the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model and taking Bristol as the base case. [13103]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The percentage of extra fuel required to heat a typical house with gas central heating is estimated to be as follows for each of the specified locations:

  (a) Rochdale +9 per cent. and

  (b) the North West of England: between +9 per cent. and +15 per cent. depending on precise location.

  These figures have been calculated using the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model and taking Bristol as the base case.

  Council House Rents
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to cap rebate reimbursement to local authorities which set council housing rents above the guideline figure determined by his Department. [13147]

  Mr. Clappison
  The limit on rent rebate subsidy formed part of the 1996–97 housing revenue account subsidy determination which was issued on 22 December 1995. Authorities which keep their rent increases within the guideline increase will be unaffected, as will authorities which keep their rents below the guideline rent for 1996–97.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change the 1995–96 cash limit for Ordnance Survey. [13399]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary spring supplementary estimate for Ordnance Survey, class VII, vote 7, the cash limit will be increased by a token £1,000 from £16,984,000 to
  841
  £16,985,00, and the net running costs limit will be decreased by £918,000 from £13,465,000 to £12,547,000, reflecting an excess of increased running costs related receipts over increased gross running costs expenditure on the vote.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash and running cost limits for 1995–96. [13544]

  Mr. Gummer
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the following cash limit changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 1—housing and construction, England—covering sections B, C, D and G of that vote, will be decreased by £1,237,000 from £112,415,000 to £111,178,000. This change partially offsets the increased demand for tax relief grant which is administered by the Housing Corporation and is not cash limited.

  The DOE/HC—Housing Corporation—cash limit will be increased by £51,000 from £1,149,038,000 to £1,149,089,000 through the take-up of entitlement to end year flexibility for capital spending on the approved development programme as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, column 776.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 2, RCW—regeneration and countryside and wildlife—will be increased by £581,000 from £1,520,799,000 to £1,521,380,000. The changes reflect the transfer of £833,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry to support the coalfield strategic fund for an extension to Dearne Valley college; a transfer to the Home Office of £75,000 to support three safer cities projects in Wales and a reduction of £177,000 to allow supplementary credit approvals to be issued in respect of English Partnerships from the RCW non-voted cash limit.

  The non-voted cash limit for regeneration and countryside and wildlife will be increased by £758,000 from £1,503,516,000 to £1,504,274,000. The changes reflect the transfer of £833,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry to support the coalfield strategic fund for an extension to Dearne Valley college and a transfer of £75,000 to the Home Office to support three safer cities projects in Wales.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 3—environmental protection and water—covering sections A, B, C, D, F and G will be increased by £1,444,000. This change will cover increased grant in aid to the British Waterways Board and will be funded by take-up of part of the entitlement to capital end of year flexibility as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, column 776. There will be an increase of £1,640,000 in the external financing limit for the British Waterways Board, made up of £1,444,000 arising from the end of year flexibility entitlement shown above and a virement between sub-heads within the vote of £196,000.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 4—local government and planning, England—covering sections A to F of that vote, will be reduced by £300,000 from £30,087,110,000 to £30,086,810,000. This change is to allow savings due to lower than planned activity on section D—planning and
  842
  minerals research—to be transferred to class VII, vote 1—housing and construction, England and Energy Efficiency Office—to partially offset the increased demand for tax relief grant.
  The DOE/LGR—local government reorganisation—cash limit will be reduced by £11,140,000 from £76,696,000 to £65,556,000. This change reflects lower than anticipated applications from local authorities for supplementary credit approvals to offset the abatement and recovery of housing revenue account subsidy in respect of Greater London Council deemed debt.

  The cash limit for class VII, vote 5—Administration—will be increased by £7,718,000 from £226,100,000 to £233,818,000. This change reflects the transfer of provision from Property Holdings to DOE of £5,481,000 for the relocation of the Department's headquarters, the take-up of £2,000,000 of end year flexibility entitlement for capital expenditure, as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, column 776, to cover the costs of faster than expected progress on the relocation project and various other small changes of responsibility between the Department and other parts of Government.

  Overall, the Department's gross running cost limit will be reduced by £2,339,000 from £228,854,000 to £226,515,000. This reflects the capitalisation of the costs of early retirements and transfers of responsibility to other parts of Government.

  Property Holdings' gross running cost limit will be increased by £212,000 from £19,863,000 to £20,075,000. The increase represents a transfer from DOE.

  The Office of Water Services gross running cost limit will be increased by £170,000 from £8,539,000 to £8,709,000. This will not result in an increase in the cash limit.

  All the increases will be offset either by savings, transfers from other Government Departments or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

TRANSPORT

  Coventry Air Crash
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action(a) has been or (b) will be taken against Air Algerie in respect of its not applying for permits. [12173]

  Mr. Norris
  Under the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995, a permit can be issued to the operator of the aircraft or the charterer of the aircraft or to the Government of the country in which the aircraft is registered. In this particular case, responsibility for obtaining permits for the cargo charter flights operated from Coventry in December 1994 rested with the UK charterer, Phoenix Aviation. Applications were received from this company but insufficient documentation was supplied to enable a permit to be issued.

  In light of the fact that flights operated without the necessary permits, the Department in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the flights to determine whether

  843
  there should be any prosecution action. However, Phoenix Aviation were placed in liquidation before any charges could be laid.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he proposes to modify the flight permit scheme to ensure compliance in accordance with recommendations of the air accident investigation branch's accident report on the Air Algerie Boeing 737 accident at Coventry in December 1994. [12174]

  Mr. Norris
  My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced on 10 January that the Department had amended its procedures for the approval of wet leased aircraft—aircraft leased with crew—in accordance with the recommendation made by the air accident investigation branch. These amended procedures will require the provision of a statement from the applicant airline as to which airline's operations and flight manuals will be applicable to the proposed flight. This change will clarify responsibilities as regards future applications involving the use of wet leased aircraft.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he will be taking as a result of the recent report into the Coventry air crash in December 1994. [12956]

  Mr. Norris
  My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced on 10 January that the Department had reviewed its permit procedures as recommended by air accident investigation branch and taken action to amend the procedures for the approval of the operation of wet leased aircraft—aircraft leased with crew—by foreign aircraft. These amended procedures require the provision of a statement from the applicant airline as to which airline operations and flight manuals will be applicable for the proposed flight. This change will clarify permit responsibilities as regards future applications involving the use of wet leased aircraft.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the present total estimated cost for the construction of the Newbury bypass; [12733]

  (2) when he expects the Highways Agency to publish details of the cost-benefit analysis carried out in respect of the Newbury bypass; [12747]

  (3) what actions the Highways Agency has taken to ensure that security personnel employed by contractors clearing the route of the Newbury bypass have adequate training. [12746]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 1 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the Newbury Bypass.
  Reliance Security Services, the security firm employed on the Newbury Bypass scheme, are employed directly by the site clearance contractor. It is a requirement of the Highways Agency that all sub-contracted security companies are members of the British Security Industry Association and that they conform to British Standard 7499 covering static guards and mobile patrols.
  844
  The cost benefit analysis for the scheme was presented to the Public Inquiries held in 1988. That analysis showed the scheme to be very good value for money, that is still the case. The total estimated cost of the scheme is £101 million, excluding VAT.

  Public Service Vehicle Drivers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public service vehicle drivers' licences have been(a) applied for, (b) issued, (c) objected to by (i) the police, (ii) the public and (iii) others, (d) issued and (e) withdrawn by the authorities in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on trends. [12870]

  Mr. Norris
  In the year from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995 the total number of vocational drivers licences issued was 167,650 of which we estimate 33,530 were public service vehicle drivers' licences. This figure includes provisional licences, renewals and replacements as well as new licences. During the same period, 59 licence applications were refused, 24 licences were suspended and 108 licences were revoked by traffic commissioners on grounds of the applicant's conduct record. There is no right of objection to the issue of driver licences but all relevant representations are considered by the traffic commissioners.

  There is no consistent trend over the last four years.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he proposes to take to prevent assaults on children by public service vehicle drivers. [12875]

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic commissioners for each area take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that drivers whose conduct suggests they are unsuitable cannot be bus drivers. The primary responsibility for the safety of children in their charge rests with the schools and local education authorities.

  Bus Company Mergers
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding Pendle borough council's decision to sell its 50 per cent. stake in Burnley and Pendle Transport. [12836]

  Mr. Norris
  Burnley borough council wrote to the Department last October. The hon. Members for Burnley and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) spoke during the Adjournment debate on this subject on 13 December, and a number of questions has been answered from those hon. Members. Otherwise I have received no representations on this matter.

  Passengers (Buses and Coaches)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present policy regarding standing passengers on(a) buses and (b) coaches; what assessment he has made of the benefits of renewing this policy; and if he will make a statement. [12838]

  Mr. Norris
  The carriage of standing passengers in both buses and coaches is strictly controlled by the Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984. Both seating and standing capacities must be marked clearly on the vehicle. Vehicles intended to carry more than eight standing passengers must meet minimum
  845
  requirements for both standing space and headroom. Sufficient hand grips must be fitted for each standing passenger.

  We are currently consulting on a draft code of practice on the operation of one-man operated buses, which includes the measures for standing passengers. I shall be considering the safety of standing passengers, along with the other provisions of the code, in the light of that consultation.

  Rail Maintenance Contracts
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment is made by Railtrack of the financial soundness of a contractor before a maintenance contract is let. [12850]

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that, before Railtrack lets a maintenance contract, all prospective bidders who have expressed an interest are required to go through a pre-qualification process, including an assessment of their financial stability and robustness as well as their competence to do the work and their track record.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running cost limits; and what proposals there are to change the cash limit of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator for 1995–96. [13611]

  Sir George Young
  (i) The cash limit for class VI, vote 2—administration and transport services—is reduced by £2,388,000 from £177,405,000 to £175,017,000. The reduction is made up of transfers to class VI, vote 3, £1,700,000, vote 7, £601,000, and the Department of the Environment, class VII, vote 5, £87,000.

  (ii) The cash limit for class VI, vote 3—transport industries—is increased by £1,700,000 from £8,000,000 to £9,700,000. The increase is wholly made up of transfers from class VI, vote 2.

  (iii) The cash limit for class VI, vote 4—Vehicle and Driver Licensing Agency—is reduced by £3,000,000 from £176,549,000 to £173,549,000. The reduction is wholly derived from transfers to class VI, vote 7.

  (iv) The cash limit for class VI, vote 5—roads and local transport—is reduced by £2,150,000 from £514,765,000 to £512,615,000. The reduction is wholly made up of transfers to class VI, vote 3.

  (v) The cash limit for class VI, vote 6—other transport agencies—is increased by £275,000 from £81,816,000 to £82,091,000. The whole of the increase comprises a transfer of funds from the Ministry of Defence, class 1, vote 1, to the Coastguard agency for stationing a search and rescue helicopter at Portland.

  (vi) The cash limit for class VI, vote 7—passenger rail services—is increased. by £98,878,000 from £1,620,604,000 to £1,719,482,000. £75,000,000 is funded from non-voted provision for the railways. The remainder comprises £20,277,000 as a claim on the reserve and a transfer of funds from class VI, votes 2 and 4—£3,601,000. The additional provision is required for consultancies and restructuring proposals.
  846
  (vii) The Department of Transport local authority capital cash limit has been increased by £3,796,000 from £353,906,000 to £357,702,000. This completes take up of capital end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82.

  (viii) The Department of Transport running costs limit has been reduced by £1,579,000 from £413,464,000 to £411,885,000 and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising running costs limit has been increased by £1,492,000 from £4,672,000 to £6,164,000. The changes in the Department of Transport running costs limit reflect salary payments for staff transferring to the Central Transport Group, £87,000 from the Department of Environment and restructuring and relocation costs, £1,492,000 for the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising.

  The overall increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Central Rail Users Consultative Committee
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the appointment of the new chairman of the Central rail users consultative committee. [13610]

  Mr. Watts
  I have today announced the appointment of Mr. David Bertram as the new chairman of the committee.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral answer of 15 January,Official Report, columns 391–92, and the letter from Dr. Jim Swire, spokesman of UK Family-Flight 103, dated 22 January, what considerations led him to conclude that a fatal accident inquiry was a suitable substitute for a public inquiry into the destruction of PA103. [13001]

  Mr. Norris
  The fatal accident inquiry was a detailed examination of the circumstances of the deaths. It was held entirely in public.

  Central Railway plc
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of how many of the applications rules under the Transport and Works Act 1992 Central Railway plc has applied for waivers or conditional waivers; and what estimate he has made of the effect on the quality and quantity of information provided in support of the Central Railway application under the Act if the waiver were granted. [12573]

  Mr. Watts
  Central Railway plc has withdrawn all its waivers' applications. I understand that it intends to submit fresh applications in a modified form. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on 31 January, copies of any future waiver requests in respect of the Central Railway project will be placed in the Library of the House. In deciding whether to grant any waivers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have regard to the effect on the quality and quantity of information which would be provided in support of Central Railway's application.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the pontoon bridge established by the implementation force—IFOR—across the River Sava from Croatia into north-eastern Bosnia is available for use by non-governmental organisation aid traffic. [12199]

  Mr. Soames
  We understand that the bridges established across the Sava river into the US divisional area of IFOR are available for use by NGO convoys, although priority is given to IFOR traffic.

  Officer Training Recruits
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of recruits accepted for direct entry to officer training come from(a) public and (b) private sector education. [12182]

  Mr. Soames
  The percentage of recruits accepted for direct officer training in each of the three services which came from the public and private education sectors in 1994–95, the latest period for which figures are available, is shown in the table.

  Service

  Private sector Per cent.

  Public sector Per cent.

  Royal Navy

  29

  71

  Army

  50

  47

  Royal Air Force

  26

  74

  In addition, 3 per cent. of the total direct entrant officer recruits to the Army came from overseas.

  Belize
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military aid the United Kingdom gives to Belize; and what treaty arrangements it has with the Government of Belize. [12254]

  Mr. Soames
  Belize is an independent country within the Commonwealth. Since 1 January 1994, Belize has had responsibility for its own defence. We have, however, assured the Government of Belize of our readiness to take part in consultations leading to an appropriate response should the security of Belize be threatened in the future.

  We have made it clear that we shall continue our programme of assistance for the development of the Belize defence force to sustain and improve the force's capability through the provision of loan service personnel, equipment, training and advice. In addition, Belize continues to receive substantial amounts of British aid.

  Lethal Weapons (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the value of lethal weapons that have been lost, stolen or unaccounted for in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and what were the main weapons involved. [12577]
  848
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The number of weapons lost or stolen in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1991: Nil

  1992: Nil

  1993: 2 x SA 80

  1 x pistol

  1994: 4 x pistols

  1995: Nil

  The aggregate value is estimated at approximately £3,300.

  Over the period, some seven additional weapons were lost or stolen and subsequently recovered. No weapons were otherwise unaccounted for.

  Gulf War Medal with Bar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed services personnel were awarded the Gulf war medal with bar. [13014]

  Mr. Soames
  Based on the latest figures available at 31 December 1995, 58,546 Gulf war medals have been issued to armed forces personnel. Of these, 66 service personnel were awarded the medal with clasp "2 Aug 1990" for their service with the Kuwait liaison team in Kuwait on 2 August 1990. A further 46,120 service personnel were awarded the medal with clasp "16 Jan–28 Feb 1991" for service in the Kuwait theatre of operations.

  Cash and Operating Cost Limits
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to the class I cash limits and operating costs limit for 1995–96. [13549]

  Mr. Soames
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the spring supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  Class I cash limits

  £000

  Vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit

  1

  10,796,956

  +199,050

  10,996,006

  2

  4,957,988

  -200,000

  4,757,988

  3

  5,965,325

  +6,310

  5,971,635

  These changes increase the block defence cash limit by £5,360,000 from £21,720,269,000 to £21,725,629,000. It reflects the net effect of transfers between the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments.

  The Ministry of Defence operating costs limit will also be increased by £5,360,000 from £16,767,218,000 to £16,772,578,000 to reflect the net effect of transfers between the Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now commission an independent inquiry into the incidence of birth deformities among children of Gulf war veterans; and if he will make a statement. [13007]
  849
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 30 January 1996,Official Report, columns 607–8.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights by No. 32 the Royal Squadron have been charged to the privy purse in the current financial year to date; what sum has been so charged; on what basis the charge is calculated; what is the charge per(a) hour and (b) mile; and what was the cost of the flight from Norwich to Zurich on 2 January. [13008]

  Mr. Soames
  In the current financial year to date, members of the royal family have undertaken eight private flights in aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron, for which the MOD has charged the relevant households £9,544.67

  The basis of the charge is the marginal cost of operating the aircraft for the particular flight—fuel consumption, for example. The rates for each of the aircraft types are as follows:
  1 April 1995–30 September 1995

  BAe 146: £1,870 per hour

  HS 125: £630 per hour

  Wessex: £1,325 per hour

  1 October 1995 onwards

  BAe: £1,780 per hour

  HS 125: £665 per hour

  Wessex: £1,460 per hour

  As the costs of flying are a function of time rather than distance, charges are calculated on a cost per hour basis, not cost per mile. We do not maintain records of, or utilise, cost per mile figures as they would not represent a useful basis for cost calculation or comparison purposes.

  My Department will levy a charge of £1,584 for the flight from RAF Mildenhall to Zurich on 2 January: of this sum, £1,232 will be a charge to the royal household, and £352 a charge to the Metropolitan police for the two personal protection officers accompanying the party. My recent answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 23 January 1996, Official Report, column 136, did not make the distinction between these two elements of the cost to be reimbursed to my Department.

  Language Training
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving military personnel have received advanced language training within the responsibility of his Department in each of the last 10 years; and if he will indicate the figures for each language taught. [12817]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested for the last 10 years is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The figures provided are for the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and the programmed figures for 1995–96. They relate to advanced—previously linguist—and interpreter level courses delivered by the 850
  Defence school of languages at Beaconsfield, Salmond house training centre in Germany as well as individual external language training.

  a. Defence School of Languages

  RUSSIAN

  FY 1995–96: 29

  FY 1994–95: 29

  FY 1993–94: 34

  ARABIC

  FY 1995–96: 27

  FY 1994–95: 32

  FY 1993–94: 18

  b. Salmond House Training Centre

  GERMAN

  FY 1995–96: 21

  FY 1994–95: 19

  FY 1993–94: 13

  c. Individual Language Training

  FY 1995–96: 74

  FY 1994–95: 81

  FY 1993–94: 48

  Training was carried out in the following languages: Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese—Mandarin—Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, Flemish, German, Greek, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Nepali, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Slovak, Turkish and Ukranian.

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current salary of the chief executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation at Gosport; and what it will be from 1 April. [12525]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The current salary of chief executive is that of a Royal Navy captain in the range £47,000 to £57,700.

  The Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation defence agency's triennial review has now been completed and has confirmed that the NARO should continue as a defence agency for a further term of three years with effect from 1 April 1996. The evaluation study into the performance of the agency during its first three years—a copy of the executive summary of which has been placed in the Library of the House—reported that the agency was competently meeting its objectives and satisfying its customers but would benefit from the introduction of best management practices from the private sector. A new chief executive will, accordingly, be recruited through open competition to take up appointment in April 1996, or as soon thereafter as possible. He/she will be required to introduce a challenging programme of efficiencies within NARO and to explore the scope for greater private sector involvement in helicopter repair. The details of this new post, including remuneration, have yet to be finalised.

  A revised framework document is in preparation and will be completed once the new chief executive is in post and the necessary delegation have been approved. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House at that time.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Belize
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the value of British aid to Belize over the last five years. [12097]

  Mr. Hanley
  Aid to Belize over the last five years for which records are available, has been

  1990–91: £6.016 million

  1991–92; £3.674 million

  1992–93: £4.498 million

  1993–94: £5.966 million

  1994–95: £16.618 million

  The increase in aid provided in 1994–95 is due primarily to the disbursement of a CDC loan of £10.4 million to the Belize Electric Co. Ltd. for a hydro-electric power facility on the Macal river.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list current aid and preferential trade arrangements with Belize. [12093]

  Mr. Hanley
  Belize receives concessional aid from Britain and the European Union under the Lomé convention. Other donors include Taiwan and Kuwait. Belize is also a borrowing member of the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and Caribbean Development Bank. Preferential trade arrangements include the European Community's generalised system of preferences and, under the terms of the Lomé convention, tariff-free access to Community markets for industrial products, and preferential access for a wide range of agricultural goods.

  Joint Funding Scheme
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in respect of the recommendation in the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review on agencies receiving £750,000 or more per year from the joint funding scheme; what considerations led the Overseas Development Administration to select the threshold figure; and what considerations were given to lower thresholds. [12242]

  Mr. Hanley
  The figure of £750,000 was selected after considering a range of options. No particular significance attaches to the figure: it simply produced a limited number of non-governmental organisations who had been major recipients of joint funding scheme funds over a sustained period and with whom we intend to begin exploring the possibilities of moving to block grant arrangements.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if money disbursed via the joint funding scheme will, following the Overseas Development Administration's fundamental expenditure review, be limited to countries within the Overseas Development Administration's new focus. [12255]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not anticipate any significant change in the geographical cover of the joint funding scheme as a result of the fundamental expenditure review.

  Police Officers (Training)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the Nigerian police officers who have undergone study tours in the United Kingdom since 1985, in each case indicating the officer's rank and the date of(a) commencement and (b) completion of the training. [12566]

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been seven study tours, that is sponsored visits as opposed to classroom training, all in 1992. There are no records prior to 1990. The details are as follows:

  Name

  Rank

  Duration of visit

  Mr. S. Adeoye

  Assistant

  27 November 1992–

  Commissioner of

  8 December 1992

  Police

  Mr. E. B. Edemeka

  Deputy

  27 November 1992–

  Superintendent of

  8 December 1992

  Police

  Mr. O. J. Ekama

  Deputy

  27 November 1992–

  Commissioner

  8 December 1992

  Mr. D. K. Isiofia

  Assistant

  27 November 1992–

  Superintendent of

  8 December 1992

  Police

  Mr. E. J. James

  Deputy

  27 November 1992–

  Superintendent of

  8 December 1992

  Police

  Mr. Z. Muazu

  Assistant

  27 November 1992–

  Superintendent of

  8 December 1992

  Police

  Mr. M. C. Okoye

  Assistant

  27 November 1992–

  Superintendent of

  8 December 1992

  Police

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the Nigerian police officers who have been trained in Britain since 1985, giving each officer's rank and date of(a) commencement and (b) completion of the training. [12565]

  Mr. Hanley
  Twenty-one Nigerian police officers have received ODA funded training in the United Kingdom since 1990. There are no records prior to this date. The further details requested have been placed in the Libraries of the house.

  Details of ODA funded training provided in the United Kingdom for Nigerian police officers between 1990–91 and 1994–95

  Name

  Rank

  Duration of training

  Mr. B. Madake

  Deputy

  26 October 1990–

  Superintendent

  2 December 1990

  Mr. B. D. Odigie

  Deputy

  29 October 1990–

  Superintendent

  2 December 1990

  Mr. Salami

  Chief Superintendent

  26 September 1991–

  8 November 1991

  Mr. Adeoye

  Chief Superintendent

  26 September 1991–

  15 December 1991

  Mr. N. L. Hussein

  Superintendent

  2 November 1992–

  11 December 1992

  Mr. B. Benjamin

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Mr. T. Chenbap

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Ms H. Ugochukwi

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Mr. S. Gambo

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  853

  Details of ODA funded training provided in the United Kingdom for Nigerian police officers between 1990–91 and 1994–95

  Name

  Rnak

  Duration of training

  Mr. K. Gwarzo

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Mr. L. Oki

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Mr. U. Ntenborg

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Mr. A. Yahaya

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Mr. P. Ukoyono

  Assistant

  15 July 1993–

  Superintendent

  27 July 1993

  Mr. P. Ebo

  Assistant

  5 June 1994–

  Commissioner

  2 July 1994

  Mr. S. F. Abdullahi

  Deputy

  5 June 1994–

  Superintendent

  2 July 1994

  Mr. M. Isa-Adejo

  Detective

  5 June 1994–

  2 July 1994

  Mr. M. Yakubu

  Detective

  5 June 1994–

  2 July 1994

  Mr. Onyeguiri

  Deputy

  5 June 1994–

  Superintendent

  2 July 1994

  Mr. A. Dikko

  Deputy

  5 June 1994–

  Superintendent

  2 July 1994

  Mr. O. J. Ekama

  Deputy

  26 March 1995–

  Commissioner

  2 April 1995

  External Finance Limit (Commonwealth Development Corporation)
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what external finance limit has been set for the current financial year for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [13718]

  Mr. Hanley
  The external finance limit for the CDC for 1995–96 is being increased by £10,000,000, from £19,000,000 to £29,000,000. The limit takes account of an increase to the provision for CDC in class II, vote 5 provision for which is made in the spring supplementary estimate. This increase is being met by transfer of resources within the vote and does not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the 1995–96 cash and running cost limits for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration. [13719]

  Mr. Hanley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the external assistance vote, class II, vote 5, will be increased by £10,390,000 from £1,764,277,000 to £1,774,667,000 and the ODA running cost limit will be increased by £400,000 from £73,993;000 to £74,393,000. The increase is in respect of: a balance of underspending against European Community budgetary aid for central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in 1993 and overspending for developing countries in 1994; an increase of £400,000 for ODA running costs in respect of a partial take up of end of year flexibility entitlements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995,Official Report, columns 776–82; an increase of £78,000 for expected costs for the Crown Agents privatisation programme; and an inward PES
  854
  transfer of £300,000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing in respect of the know-how fund. The increase will be offset by a transfer and a claim on the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Deep-sea Fish
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of action needed to implement the recommendations of Dr. Martin Angel of Southampton's report on "Deep-Sea Fish and their Habits". [11740]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1990, the ODA commissioned a series of papers, by Dr. Martin Angel and other specialists in aquatic biodiversity, to inform the preparation of an ODA biodiversity strategy. In 1995, ODA commissioned these authors to update their papers. The report was presented to countries at the second conference of the parties to the biodiversity convention last year to help stimulate debate. The findings of Dr. Angel's report will inform ODA's future programme but as the report goes wider than ODA's responsibilities, the ODA will be consulting other Government Departments on its follow-up.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Civil Servants (Directorships)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those civil servants in his Department who hold non-executive directorships in private companies, indicating in each case the civil service post held and the name of the company. [10923]

  Mr. Hanley
  Any staff holding non-executive or other directorships are required to make a declaration if they come into contact in an official capacity with a business concern in which they have an interest, or if the business concern has concluded or may conclude a contract with a Government Department.

  Any such declarations are carefully considered and the papers kept on the individual's personnel file. We are unable to provide a list without incurring disproportionate cost.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given in another place on 22 January by the Minister for Overseas Development, Official Report, House of Lords, column 51.

  Antigua and Barbuda
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the authorities of(a) Antigua and (b) Barbuda to prohibit the right of public access to beaches on these islands. [12876]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  None.

  Departmental Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost to his Department in each of the last five financial
  855
  years and this year to date of the entertainment of foreign dignitaries. [12880]

  Mr. Hanley
  Expenditure on official entertainment by the FCO—diplomatic and aid wings—for the years requested was as follows:

  1990–91: £5,178,849

  1991–92: £5,700,606

  1992–93: £6,946,298

  1993–94: £7,488,121

  1994–95: £7,680,934

  1995–96: £8,213,136 (projected)

  This expenditure has been incurred both in the UK and at 222 posts worldwide in the pursuit of the foreign policy and trade promotion objectives of Her Majesty's Government. Information about expenditure on particular categories of guest is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  EU General Affairs Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU General Affairs Council held on 29 to 30 January. [13110]

  Mr. David Davis
  The A points listed in document 4564/96—which will be deposited in the Library of the House as soon as it is available—were adopted, except for items 2 and 26 which were withdrawn by the presidency.

  The Council took note of the European Parliament resolutions in Docs. 12131/95 and 12945/95, PE-RE 83 and 89. Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Library of the House as soon as they are available.

  The Council held an open, televised debate on the Italian presidency's programme.

  The Council discussed former Yugoslavia. It heard reports from Carl Bildt and the EU's administrator in Mostar, Mr. Koschnick. The Council decided to postpone the question of recognition of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It asked the commission to produce a paper on policy towards the region by March.

  The Commission outlined their ideas for a possible new agreement with Albania. They will produce draft negotiating directives no later than the Foreign Affairs Council on 25 and 26 March.

  The Presidency and the Commission gave a brief situation report on the follow up to the Barcelona conference on Mediterranean. The Council also discussed the MEDA regulation on assistance to the Mediterranean. This was remitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further work.

  The head of the EU election unit monitoring the Palestinian elections, Carl Lidbom, briefed the Council, which adopted conclusions on EU/Palestinian relations.

  The Council discussed the Asia-Europe meeting on 1 and 2 March in Bangkok.

  The Council adopted conclusions on a proposed trade agreement with South Africa. These note the Commission's commitment to produce studies to enable approval of a mandate at the 26 and 27 February Foreign Affairs Council, with a view to concluding by June.
  856
  The presidency noted the latest applications for membership of the EU received in December and January from Lithuania, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia and agreed to invite the Commission to begin work on the options.

  The Council adopted conclusions on the appointment of an EU special envoy to the great lakes region of Africa.

  The Council agreed a declaration condemning the 27 January coup d' état in Niger. Ministers also discussed the situation in East Timor and Cyprus.

  On 30 January, there were Association Councils with Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. The troika also had a political dialogue meeting with Albania.

  No votes were taken at this Council.

  Mr. Niaz Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  .To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he expects a decision to be taken on an application made to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad by Mr. Niaz Ahmed, Ref: Imm/C8853, to join his wife and daughters in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [12953]

  (2) when he expects to make a recommendation to the United Kingdom post in Islamabad regarding the application by Mr. Niaz Ahmed, Ref: Imm/C8853, to join his wife and daughters in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [12954]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running cost limits for 1995–96. [13452]

  Mr. Hanley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 1—overseas representation—will be increased by £4,379,000 from £709,165,000 to £713,544,000. The increase is the net effect of take-up of capital end year flexibility entitlement of £14,614,000 less a transfer to class II, vote 2-other external relations—of £10,211,000 and a transfer of £24,000 to the Home Office. The gross running costs limit on class II, vote 1 has been reduced by £10,235,000 from £522,799,00 to £512,564,000 due to the transfers to the Home Office and class II, vote 2 as described.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 2—other external relations—will be increased by £176,809,000 from £291,633,000 to £468,442,000. Parliamentary authority will be sought for additional expenditure in respect of certain international organisations and contributions to peacekeeping operations. The increase will be met partly by increased appropriations in aid, partly from a claim on the reserve and partly by offsets from other sections of votes 1 and 2.
  857
  The cash limit for class II, vote 3—BBC World Service—will be increased by £3,015,000 from £175,039,000 to £178,054,000. Parliamentary authority will be sought in order to take up an increased capital provision under the end year flexibility scheme. The increase will be met from the reserve.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 4—the British Council—will be increased by £4,245,000 from £98,496,000 to £102,741,000 in respect of adverse overseas price movements; to take account of approved end year flexibility and a public expenditure survey transfer from the Welsh Office. Aside from the latter, the increase will be met from the reserve.

  All the increases in provision will be offset by appropriations in aid or charged to the reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) hid Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11438]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The available information requested is as follows. Expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by the FCO—diplomatic and aid wings:

  1991–92: £5,700,606

  1993–94: £7,488,121

  1994–95: £7,680,934

  1995–96: £8,213,136 (projected)

  Figures for earlier years could be made available only at disproportionate cost. Planned expenditure in 1996–97 is approximately £7.5 million.

  Expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by the ODA's agency, the Natural Resources Institute:

  1991–92: £4,813

  1993–94: £4,952

  1994–95: £2,566

  1995–96: £5,000 (projected)

  Figures for earlier years could be made available only at disproportionate cost. The NRI is expected to be privatised in 1996–97.

  Expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by the FCO's only agency, Wilton Park:

  1994–95: £455

  1995–96: £1,000 (projected)

  Figures for earlier years could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Based on available information, expenditure by the FCO's non-departmental public bodies was as follows:

  British-Russia Centre

  1989–90: £3,000

  1991–92: £3,356

  1993–94: £2,199

  858

  1994–95: £2,362

  1995–96: £2,500 (projected)

  1996–97: £2,600 (estimate)

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe
  Expenditure not recorded separately (estimated £1,000 per annum).

  British Council

  1989–90: £882,000

  1991–92: £1,087,000

  1993–94: £1,068,000

  1994–95: £1,288,000

  These figures include some programme expenditure. Owing to the British Council's
  accounting structure, meaningful estimates for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not
  available.

  Commonwealth Institute

  Expenditure not recorded separately (estimated £5,000 per annum).

  Great Britain-China Centre

  1989–90: £569

  1991–92: £406

  1993–94: £140

  1994–95: £369

  1995–96: £190 (projected)

  1996–97: £250 (estimate)

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  1979–80: £2,350

  1989–90: £4,847

  1991–92: £7,199

  1993–94: £7,885

  1994–95: £6,711

  1995–96: £8,950 (projected)

  1996–97: £9,500 (estimate)

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Nil

  Figures for other years could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what account he has taken of the case of Hehir, 1982, in advising Ministers and others on the freedom to waive necessary claims to public interest immunity; [12435]

  (2) what account he has taken of the rules put forward on public interest immunity duties in the case of Makanjuola v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. [12436]

  The Attorney-General
  Advice to the Crown on public interest immunity takes account of all relevant case law, which includes Hehir and Makanjuola and, since 1994, the House of Lords decision in ex parte Wiley.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. French
  To ask the Attorney-General what changes he proposes for the Crown Prosecution Service's cash and running costs limits for 1995–96. [13344]
  859
  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IX, vote 4 will be increased by £1,500,000 from £229,754,000 to £231,254,000. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The running costs limit of class IX, vote 4 will be reduced by £1,200,000 from £225,754,000 to £224,554,000. The reduction will fund an increase in capital provision and, with the increase mentioned earlier, will fund the accelerated implementation of team working and the CPS's SCOPE—standard case operations system—computer system.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cash and running cost limits for the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland departmental services, the independent living fund and certain national agricultural schemes for 1995–96. [13453]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Subject to parliament approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, it is proposed that the cash limit for class XVI vote I—the Northern Ireland Office—will be increased by £15,650,000 from £888,655,000 to £904,305,000. This reflects the take-up of end year flexibility on capital and departmental running costs, and the additional expenditure on compensation and the opening of border roads.

  The cash limit which covers most Northern Ireland departmental services will be increased by £97,622,000 from £3,936,723,000 to £4,034,345,000. This increase reflects the take-up of end year flexibility on capital, departmental running costs and health, the EU peace and reconciliation programme expenditure and other technical changes.

  The cash limit for the independent living fund—Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services vote 5—had been reduced by £1,125,000 reflecting lower than expected demands on the fund. This amount will be transferred to class XIII, vote 3.

  The cash limit covering national agriculture capital grant schemes and certain assistance for production, marketing and processing and the fishing industry will increase by £1,120,000 from £6,882,000 to £8,002,000 as a result of the take-up of entitlement to end year flexibility on capital—£670,000—and a transfer from Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food of £450,000 in respect of the scheme to decommission nephrops vessels in Northern Ireland.

  The combined gross running cost for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments will be increased by £29,782,000 from £789,017,000 to £818,799,000. This reflects the take-up of £29,877,000 of end year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82, a net transfer of £95,000 to the Department of Social Security in respect of work by the staff resources unit and adjustments to agency services.
  860
  Of the revised gross running cost provision, £175,149,000 is for the Northern Ireland office and £643,650,000 is for Northern Ireland Departments.

  The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Health Service Planning
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what studies his Department has undertaken into work force planning in the last five years. [8333]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: The following studies have been carried out by the Department of Health and Social Services over the last five years:

  (a) 1992 Nursing establishment and skill mix in Northern Ireland, "Making the best use of Resources in Northern Ireland".

  (b) 1995 Nursing establishment and skill mix in Northern Ireland, "Mental Health Nursing Resources".

  (c) 1995 Nursing establishment and skill mix in Northern Ireland, "Learning Disability Nursing Resources".

  (d) 1993 report of the task force on nursing manpower.

TREASURY

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gross net income of a married man with two children under 11 years of age, earning a national average wage and paying non-contracted-out national insurance contributions, in each year since 1966; what was the annual percentage increase in the retail prices index; what was his net real income at 1995 prices; and what was the percentage increase in his net real income compared to(a) 12 months previously and (b) to the level in 1966. [9318]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Real take-home pay

  Net income1 2£ per week

  RPI3

  Real take-home pay2 4£per week

  1973–74

  34.90

  24.45

  215.71

  1978–79

  73.45

  51.10

  217.18

  1979–80

  88.60

  59.20

  226.13

  1980–81

  104.02

  68.80

  228.46

  1981–82

  113.06

  76.80

  222.44

  1982–83

  121.46

  82.20

  223.26

  1983–84

  132.61

  86.00

  233.00

  1984–85

  144.31

  90.40

  241.21

  1985–86

  154.81

  95.70

  244.44

  1986–87

  167.14

  98.80

  255.52

  1987–88

  183.71

  102.70

  270.29

  1988–89

  203.34

  108.90

  282.14

  1989–90

  221.73

  117.40

  285.43

  1990–91

  242.53

  128.70

  284.74

  1991–92

  260.83

  134.90

  292.14

  1992–93

  277.47

  139.10

  301.40

  861

  Real take-home pay

  Net income1 2£ per week

  RPI3

  Real take-home pay2 4£per week

  1993–94

  286.26

  141.50

  305.68

  1994–95

  288.99

  145.40

  300.32

  1995–96

  296.78

  151.10

  296.78

  1996–97

  312.24

  154.50

  305.37

  1 Net income is earnings income less income tax and national insurance contributions plus child benefit.

  2 For a one-earner couple on average male earnings, paying non-contracted-out national insurance contributions, with two children under eleven years of age.

  3January 1987 = 100.

  4In 1995–96 prices.

  Taxation (Costs)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the costs of collection of(a) income tax, (b) corporation tax and (c) capital gains tax in each year since 1974; what were the reasons for changes in costs between years; and in which areas of Government increased administrative costs were attributable to the complexity of legislation. [11135]

  Mr. Jack
  The following table shows the costs of collection in current prices and the costs expressed as a percentage of the yield for 1982–83 onwards. Figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  £ million

  Income tax cost

  Corporation tax cost

  Capital gains tax cost

  1982–83

  650

  60

  15

  1983–84

  676

  63

  15

  1984–85

  730

  60

  14

  1985–86

  805

  62

  15

  1986–87

  883

  71

  18

  1987–88

  932

  85

  25

  1988–89

  973

  91

  27

  1989–90

  1,068

  101

  32

  1990–91

  1,203

  125

  39

  1991–92

  1,248

  152

  43

  1992–93

  1,366

  149

  38

  1993–94

  1,427

  156

  42

  1994–95

  1,353

  149

  33

  Changes in costs reflect changes in prices, in the overall burden of work and in efficiency.

  It would not be practical to attempt to list every area of government where increased administration costs were attributable to the complexity of legislation, but civil service running costs are falling in real terms and are planned to fall by 15 per cent. between 1993–94 and 1998–99.

  Unemployment
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the costs to the Exchequer of unemployment in(a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [12688]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Gross benefit payments to the unemployed in 1979–80 and 1994–95, at 1994–95 prices, are estimated to have been £3.4 billion and £9.1 billion respectively.

  Disabled People (VAT)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the direction issued by Customs and Excise regarding the payment by registered disabled individuals of VAT on computers and printers specially adapted for them for home use. [12868]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) on 24 January 1996,Official Report, columns 228–29.

  Special Dividends
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates his Department has made of the cost to the Exchequer from the tax loophole involved in the use of special dividends in takeover bids. [12539]

  Mr. Jack
  The payment of a special dividend does not involve a tax loophole. A special dividend carries a tax credit in the same way as an ordinary dividend. This mitigates the double tax charge on distributed profits since tax is payable by the company on the profits out of which the dividend is paid.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed in the cash limit and running cost limit for 1995–96 for the Inland Revenue. [13547]

  Mr. Jack
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 4 will be increased by £25,000,000 from £1,630,358,000 to £1,655,358,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £10,000,000 from £1,662,705,000 to £1,672,705,000. Within the cash limit increase is included the take up of £10,000,000 running costs end-year flexibility entitlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995,Official Report, columns 776–82. A further £1,330,000 is required in respect of a shortfall in law costs receipts. The balance of £13,670,000 is required to cover reduced receipts because of lower than expected charges to the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) for the cost of collecting of national insurance contributions. The £13,670,000 is entirely offset by a saving to the national insurance funds out of which the charges are met.

  The increases other than that relating to the receipts from the national insurance funds will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed in the cash limit and running cost limit for 1995–96 for HM Customs and Excise. [13548]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary' supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVII, vote 3, will be increased by £8,824,000 from £850,237,000 to £859,061,000 and the running cost limit for Customs and Excise by £7,955,000 from £741,377,000 to £749,332,000.
  863
  The increase in the running cost limit arises from the take up of £7,955,000 of the end-year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82. The adjustment to the cash limit also reflects an increase to provide £869,000 capital provision transferred from Property Holdings. The increase, other than the capital transfer which is offset by a saving to class VII, vote 8 will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total income from all sources of all pensioners expressed as a percentage of(a) gross domestic product and (b) the total personal incomes of the population as a whole in each year since 1979. [10999]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: Available information is given in the table. The figures are influenced both by changes in the number of pensioners and by changes in their average incomes over time. Average pensioner incomes have increased by 50 per cent., in real terms, since 1979.

  Total pensioner income1 from all sources as percentage of:

  (a) GDP2

  (b) total personal income3

  1979

  7.8

  9.4

  1981

  8.7

  10.0

  1987

  9.3

  11.1

  1988

  9.2

  10.9

  1989

  8.9

  10.3

  1990

  9.0

  10.0

  1990–914

  9.5

  10.6

  1992

  10.2

  11.1

  1993

  9.9

  10.9

  Source:

  1DSS Pensioner Income Series a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. This excludes pensioners not living in private households—those living in nursing or residential care homes, for example. It is largely based on information contained in the Family Expenditure Survey and is subject to sampling variability.

  Notes:

  2 At market prices.

  3 Personal income before tax.

  4 Combined 1990 and 1991 calendar years.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11448]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by Her Majesty's Treasury and agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is included in the published running costs.
  864
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96, and (g) 1996–97. [11451]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Expenditure on overseas travel and subsistence by Her Majesty's Treasury and agencies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is included in the running costs published for the Department and each agency.

PRIME MINISTER

  Antigua and Barbuda
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the authorities of(a) Antigua and (b) Barbuda to prohibit the right of public access to beaches on these islands. [12877]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, column 16, to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) if he will place in the Library the evidence which he claims supports the charges against two accused Libyans in respect of the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988. [11739]

  The Prime Minister
  No. Details of the evidence cannot be released as this would prejudice the outcome of a trial.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11620]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February. [11621]

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

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie his Department's decision not to declare St. Davids day a bank holiday in Wales. [12576]

  The Prime Minister
  Successive Governments have kept the pattern of bank holidays in the United Kingdom under review. The introduction of any additional bank holiday must take account of the potential costs and disruption to industry. To declare St. David's day a bank
  865
  holiday in Wales would create cost and disruption to businesses both in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Mitchell Report
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister when a copy of his statement on the Mitchell report was communicated to the Irish Taoiseach; at what time it was(a) sent and (b) received; and what response he received from the Irish Government before to his statement to the House on 24 January. [13083]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of the text of my statement was faxed to the Taoiseach's office at about 2 o'clock on 24 January. No response from the Irish Government reached me before I made my statement to the House.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department,(b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11366]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Privatised Utilities (Employees)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many people were employed by(a) British Gas, (b) British Telecom, (c) Central Electricity Generating Board, (d) East Midlands electricity board, (e) Eastern electricity board, (f) London electricity board, (g) Manweb, (h) Midlands electricity board, (i) Northern electricity board, (j) Norweb, (k) Seeboard, (l) South Wales electricity board, (m) South Western electricity board, (n) Southern electricity board, (o) Yorkshire electricity board, (p) Anglian water authority, (q) Welsh water authority, (r) Northumbrian water authority, (s) North West water authority, (t) Severn Trent water authority, (u) Southern water authority, (v) South West water authority, (w) Thames water authority, (x) Wessex water authority, and (y) Yorkshire water authority, in the final year before each was privatised; [12189]

  (2) what was the total amount of remuneration paid to people serving on the boards of (a) British Gas, (b) British Telecom, (c) Central Electricity Generating Board, (d) East Midlands electricity board, (e) Eastern electricity board, (f) London electricity board, (g) Manweb, (h) Midlands electricity board, (i) Northern electricity board, (j) Norweb, (k) Seeboard, (l) South Wales electricity board, (m) South Western electricity board, (n) Southern electricity board and (o) Yorkshire electricity board in the final years before each was privatised. [12187]
  866
  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 30 January 1996,Official Report, column 656.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money at 1995 prices raised by the nuclear levy will be refunded to the Exchequer as a result of the proposed privatisation. [12476]

  Mr. Eggar
  No levy money will be refunded to the Exchequer as a result of the proposed privatisation.

  Sydney Olympics
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 253, what is the make-up of the Sydney Olympics UK business task force. [12567]

  Mr. Nelson
  The membership of the Sydney Olympics UK business task force is as follows:

  Chairman

  The hon. Colin Moynihan

  Members

  Mr. Colin Adams—British Consultants Bureau

  Sir Tim Bell—Lowe Bell Communications

  Mr. G. Campkin—Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. M. Cohen—Department of Trade and Industry

  Dr. John Hooper—British Sports and Allied Industries Federation

  Mr. Harvey Lipsith—Allders

  Mr. Peter Lorschy—Australian Trade Commission

  Sir Colin Marshall—British Airways

  Mrs. Diana Morphew—Government of New South Wales

  Mr. Alan Pascoe—API Sponsorship Ltd.

  Mr. David Tate—Tate and Lyle plc

  Mr. David Todd—Corns Chambers Westgarth

  Mr. Roger Withers—Bass Leisure Machines Services Ltd.

  Polypropylene
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the non-cadmium substitutes available to replace cadmium pigments in polypropylene following the implementation of European Union directive 91/338/EEC. [12821]

  Mr. Page
  There are many factors to consider when choosing a pigment to colour polypropylene, including the thermal stability of the pigment during processing, the service demands of the finished article—i.e. light and weather fastness—and suitability for use in toys and food contact articles. By assessing the demands of the application, it is then possible to choose the correct pigment for the particular application.

  A wide variety of pigments can be used to colour polypropylene, varying in shade, colour, strength, physical properties and price. These include organic systems such as those based on quinacridone, diketo-pyrrolo-pyrrol, isolindolinone, quinophthalone, perylene and azo condensation products. Inorganic systems based upon nickel and chrome titanium and bismuth can also be used.

  Scott Inquiry
  Sir Peter Horden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Sir Richard Scott's report will be published. [13612]

  Mr. Lang
  On current plans, I expect Sir Richard Scott's report to be published on 15 February.

  British Coal Land
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will halt the sale of British Coal land in Copeland and inquire into the procedure followed; [13154]

  (2) if he will ensure that all relevant information is available to all potential purchasers of British Coal land before any sales are concluded; and if he will make a statement. [13156]

  (3) if he will set out the guidelines to be followed in the sale of British Coal land; [13157]

  (4) what assessment he has made of whether the method adopted to sell British Coal land in Copeland will maximise the return for the assets disposed of; and if he will make a statement. [13155]

  Mr. Page
  The management and disposal of its property is a matter for British Coal. I understand that the corporation has followed a normal commercial approach to the disposal of property in Copeland and related areas, including the provision of all relevant information to all potential purchasers; and that bids have been assessed with a view to obtaining the best terms available for the assets involved, in the light of the corporation's statutory duties.

  Saudi Arabia (Trade)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the value of United Kingdom trade with Saudi Arabia in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [12748]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 January 1996]: The information is as follows:
  868

  UK visible trade with Saudi Arabia 1992–94 and January to November 1995

  £ million

  Year

  UK exports

  UK imports

  1992

  1,966

  964

  1993

  1,826

  1,275

  1994

  1,516

  740

  January to November

  1995

  1,503

  648

  Source:

  CSO Monthly Review of External Trade statistics.

  CSO Business Monitor MA20.

  The kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains the largest market for UK exporters outside the OECD countries. The decline in our exports over the last three years is mainly due to budgetary constraints in Saudi Arabia.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Conveyancing Law
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the benefits and disbenefits of extending section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 to conveyances which do not accompany a transfer of the beneficial interest in the land. [12212]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The recommendations for the introduction of legislation to extend the compulsory registration of title provisions of section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 to various categories of disposition did not include extending compulsory registration at present to conveyances which do not accompany a transfer of the beneficial interest. This was because responses to the consultation document on extending section 123, issued by the Land Registry in November 1992, received general support but included reservations about extending the section to such conveyances—paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7 of the first report of a joint working group on the implementation of the Law Commission's third and fourth reports on land registration, Law Corn. No.235, Cm 2950. Paragraph 2.6 of the first report proposed that matters—including the extension of section 123 to such conveyances—identified as having insufficient support to justify further action at present should be reviewed again after a period of five years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women Prisioners (Restraints)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the chair of the board of visitors of each prison in England and Wales as to the use of restraints when women inmates are taken outside prison for whatever reason. [11600]

  Miss Widdecombe
  At last September's annual conference of boards of visitors the issue of handcuffing women in sensitive situations was raised with me.

  The chairmen of the boards at Bullwood Hall and New Hall prisons wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend on 16 and 17 October 1995 respectively, about the use of restraints on women when on escort. An earlier letter of 16 June 1995, from the chairman of the board at Askham Grange prison to the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), about women prisoners generally, also raised this issue. Askham Grange board wrote again on 13 November 1995.

  When my right hon. and learned Friend and I visit prisons, we take the opportunity to speak to boards of visitors who raise a wide range of issues. None of the records of our visits indicates that the use of restraints on women prisoners outside their establishments was raised as a concern.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which powers contained in the Asylum and Immigration Bill affect foreign passport holders with permanent right of United Kingdom abode; if foreign passport holders will be re-classified as immigrants; how their right to remain in the United Kingdom will be affected; and if he will make a statement. [12180]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A Commonwealth citizen with the right of abode under section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 will be unaffected by the Bill, except to the extent that certain provisions, such as the new power of search in clause 7, are applicable to all people regardless of their status under the Act.

  The use of the term "immigrant" in clauses 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Bill to refer to a person who, under the 1971 Act, requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom will not affect the immigration status of such a person. In particular, the entitlement of a person who is settled in this country to housing assistance and child benefit and their freedom to take employment will not be affected.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum in the United Kingdom have been received from asylum seekers currently located in other EU countries for each year since 1990. [12607]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  An average of five asylum applications have been received from nationals of European Union countries in each year since 1990.
  870
  Information on non-EU nationals who have been located in EU countries since applying for asylum in the United Kingdom is not held centrally.

  Police Vehicles (Bull Bars)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 261, if bull bars have now been removed from Metropolitan police vehicles. [12519]

  Mr. Maclean
  As I stated in my reply to an earlier question from the hon. Member on 29 November 1995,Official Report columns 781–82, and 12 December 1995, Official Report columns 604–5, this is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. However, I understand that the Commissioner has reviewed the situation in light of the guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers and is complying with them. So far as possible, bull bars will be fitted only to vehicles for use in public disorder and where that is required in the interests of officer safety.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what benefits and payments are available to special constables. [12601]

  Mr. Maclean
  Special constables are unpaid volunteers, but they are eligible to receive a number of benefits. Under the Special Constables Regulations 1965, they may be reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses or receive payment of an allowance in lieu of reimbursement. Chief officers choosing to pay an allowance may draw on Home Office guidance about allowances in respect of footwear, tights and stockings, travel and refreshment.

  Regulations entitle specials to sick pay in respect of injury suffered—or illness contracted—while on duty, and police authorities have discretion to make ex gratia payments to specials who do not qualify for sick pay under the regulations.

  In addition, regulations give police authorities discretion to pay a small bounty to special constables who qualify under the criteria—which relate to a minimum commitment of hours in a defined six-month period.

  We set up a working group on the special constabulary last year under Home Office chairmanship. We expect it to make a number of recommendations in March about the expenses and allowances that special constables should receive.

  Firearms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many legally held firearms there are in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales (i) in total and (ii) of each type. [12989]

  Mr. Maclean
  At the end of 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, it is estimated that some 375,000 firearms were covered by firearms certificates on
  871
  issue in England and about 21,700 by firearms certificates on issue in Wales.
  Information is not held centrally, however, on the type of firearm covered by these firearm certificates.

  In addition, some 1,230,800 shotguns were covered by the shotgun certificates on issue in England at the end of 1994, and some 102,300 in Wales.

  Figures for Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I understand that information on the number of weapons legally held is not available centrally.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the street value of all illegal drugs, per type of drug, seized by Government officials in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [12724]

  Mr. Sackville
  The total estimated street value of drugs seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, in the last five years for which data are available, is as follows:

  1990: £245 million

  1991: £308 million

  1992: £546 million

  1993: £475 million

  1994: £551 million

  Estimates of the street value of police seizures of illegal drugs are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the street value of all illegal drugs seized by Government officials in each of the European Union member states in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [12725]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimate of the total street value of the illegal drugs market in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [12727]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to make such an estimate with any accuracy.

  Release of Offenders
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on informing the families of victims of manslaughter and murder of the release of offenders. [13003]

  Mr. Sackville
  Our policy is as set out in the 1995 national standards for the supervision of offenders before and after release from custody, a copy of which is in the Library. In such cases, the probation service should arrange for the victim's family to be contacted within two months of the imposition of the sentence and offered the opportunity of being kept informed of developments.872
  Where this opportunity is taken up, the service should inform them when release from custody is imminent.

  Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proceedings and outcome of the EU informal Justice and Home Affairs Council on 26 to 27 January. [13111]

  Mr. Howard
  The United Kingdom was represented at the informal council in Rome by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) and, on the second day, by Timothy Walker, a senior Home Office official. It is a rule of procedure within the European Union that informal councils cannot reach decisions or adopt texts. The main matters discussed at the meeting were as follows.

  The Italian presidency invited Ministers to approve in principle the text of a draft declaration on organised crime. A number of member states, including the United Kingdom, had difficulty with the wording of the declaration as it stood, and the presidency concluded that further work was required at official level before the declaration could be submitted with a view to formal adoption at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in March.

  The Council considered the presidency's work programme for the Europol drugs unit, and for developing the supplementary regulations to the Europol convention. The Council also discussed the outstanding issue of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the Europol convention.

  The presidency set out its priorities for work on immigration and asylum. These included taking forward certain of the proposals contained in the 1994 Commission communication on immigration and asylum, and securing early progress on the Dublin convention which deals with the determination of the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member states. The presidency said that it also hoped to proceed with work on EURODAC, an initiative to establish a computer-based system of fingerprint exchanges on asylum claims.

  The Council discussed some of the issues which are blocking agreement to the draft external frontiers convention, including the dispute between the United Kingdom and Spain over its application to Gibraltar, and held a general discussion on the temporary protection of refugees in the light of recent developments in the situation in Bosnia.

  The Council discussed the main problems which had arisen during negotiations on the second convention on simplified extradition and the Brussels II convention on matrimonial matters, and examined ways in which these might be resolved.

  The Council discussed arrangements for pursuing contacts with designated third countries on justice and home affairs issues, and the presidency outlined broad proposals for a multi-annual work programme within the third pillar.

  Prisoners (Repatriation)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Irish Government responded to requests made by him in relation to the seven prisoners who have applied for repatriation from the United Kingdom; to prisons in the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement. [12950]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Seven, out of 65 requests made by prisoners to be repatriated to the Irish Republic have been referred to the Irish Ministry of Justice for its consideration. Its response is awaited.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changes to the 1995–96 cash and running costs limits within his responsibilities. [13624]

  Mr. Howard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class VIII, vote 1—Home Office administration, police, probation and other services, England and Wales—will be increased by £11,809,000 from £4,440,076,000 to £4,451,885.000. This increase is the net effect of the partial take-up of running cost end year flexibility of £9,100,000—as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 13 July 1995,Official Report, column 776–82, transfer from Department of the Environment, in respect of safer cities projects in Wales, transfer from Central Office of Information in respect of the media adviser service, transfer of running costs from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of the United Kingdom central authority, transfer from Department of Social Security in respect of housing benefit, temporary absence from home, transfer from Property Holdings in respect to the refurbishment of Lunar house, transfer from the Ministry of Defence in respect of medical evacuation costs from the former Yugoslavia and a transfer of £1 million from non voted police credit approvals. This transfer from non-voted provision reduced the non-voted cash limit—HO/LACAP—by £1,000,000 from £115,265,000 to £114.265,000.

  The cash limit on class VIII, vote 2—prisons, England and Wales—will be increased by £18,905,000 from £1,660,160,000 to £1,679,065,000. This increase has been reduced from the amount originally sought by £1,565,000, equivalent to the excess of expenditure over provision in 1994–95. The increase will be charged to the reserve and partly offset by the surrender of £6,470,000 end year flexibility. Additional provision is required to meet the further costs arising from the implementation of recommendations of the report of Sir John Woodcock into escapes from Whitemoor prison of 9 September 1994. As a result of reallocation of provision between subheads the running cost provision for vote 2 will be reduced by £5,821,000.

  The Home Office running costs limit, which covers votes 1 and 2, will be increased by £3,718,000 from £1,740,615,000 to £1,744,333,000.

  Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the jurisdiction of the courts to enable them to deal with offences committed outside the territory of the United Kingdom by United Kingdom nationals. [13625]

  Mr. Howard
  With some exceptions, the jurisdiction of courts throughout the United Kingdom is territorially based. There are long-standing arguments of principle and of practicality which support this approach.

  It is right, however, that we should, from time to time, examine whether those arguments remain valid in the light of changing circumstances. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I have established an inter-departmental review to look at the implications for both policy and procedure of any change to the current position on jurisdiction over offences committed by United Kingdom nationals overseas throughout the United Kingdom.

  The review is under way and is expected to take four or five months to complete.

  Welsh Fire Services
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total transition cost for the new Welsh fire services; and what are the expected figures for the total cost of new services in each of the next five years expressed(a) in real terms and (b) as a percentage of the cost of the services they replaced. [11065]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The position will depend on key decisions yet to be made by the authorities concerned. The three new combined fire authorities were established in shadow form on 11 December. They are engaged in the planning and preparation for taking over their full function from 1 April. The scale of the transitional costs will depend largely on the approach which the new authorities, once fully constituted, take on the pace and degree of the changes required to amalgamate the existing brigades into the new structure. Supplementary credit approvals of up to £2.7 million have been provisionally set aside for this purpose in 1996–97.

SCOTLAND

  Game Birds
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to enforce European Commission regulation EC 1798 banning the use of Emtryl in treating game birds; what penalties he plans to apply to offences against the regulation when it comes into force; and what warnings have been issued to(a) land owners, (b) breeders, (c) owners of shooting rights and (d) others involved against using Emtryl. [11626]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Food at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30 January 1996,Official Report, column 694.

  Dalkeith Park
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the cost of the alternative route one mile west of the proposed dual carriageway through Dalkeith park. [12465]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Appraisals, including the costs of several routes were undertaken in 1989. One of these routes was the Dalkeith park line which is approximately 1 km west of the route now proposed for the dual carriageway. As this Dalkeith park line was the most expensive alignment option and as it would have caused significant damage to the area of great landscape value within Dalkeith park, it was not pursued. Only routes further to the east were subsequently investigated.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the environmental impact on Dalkeith park of the proposed(a) roads and (b) bypass in the area. [12179]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Prior to examination of proposals at a public local inquiry in May 1992, an environmental appraisal of the proposed bypass and ancillary roads was undertaken in accordance with the procedures recommended in the Scottish traffic and environmental appraisal manual. In particular, this considered the purpose of the route, and the impact on the landscape, heritage and ecology of Dalkeith park. The reporter appointed to hear evidence at the public local inquiry recommended the proposed alignment should be adopted and this was supported by the Secretary of State in his decision.

  The preferred scheme was reviewed in 1995 and is now proposed to he constructed as a dual carriageway. It was subject to a further environmental assessment as required by environmental legislation.

  Housing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to reconcile the difference between the data for starts and completions of housing association and co-operative dwellings published in Scottish Homes regular development programme announcements and those published in the quarterly Scottish Office housing statistical bulletins. [11928]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Scottish Home's development programme announcement bulletins contain information on planned starts for the following year. They do not give information on completions. For a variety of reasons. The number of planned starts may differ from the number which finally take place in any year.

  Actual starts and completions are reported in Scottish Home's, statistical report. Figures published by Scottish Homes for actual starts closely match those published in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin series. There is, however, a known problem with the quarterly figures for completions which Scottish Homes provides for the statistical bulletin series. This is acknowledged in the publication. To remedy the problem, Scottish Homes carried out a major exercise in 1995 which produced validated completions data for several thousand dwellings. I understand that it plans to complete the exercise by the end of March 1996.
  876
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assumptions he has made on the level of spending by local authorities in 1996–97 under the former non-housing revenue account block; and what measures he proposes to put in place to monitor and to publish details of expenditure or repair and improvement grants and other forms of assistance by local authorities to the private sector housing stock. [11929]

  Mr. Robertson
  It will be for local authorities to decide the level of investment in private sector housing within the single allocation which they will receive in 1996–97 for capital investment outwith their own housing stock. Local authorities will be expected to take account of the need for such investment in preparing their housing plans and capital programmes.

  Information on improvement and repairs grants approved by local authorities will continue to be published quarterly in the Scottish Office statistical bulletin "Housing Trends in Scotland".

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discretion local authorities have to operate(a) voluntary and (b) compulsory contents insurance schemes for tenants of their housing stock; what guidelines his Department issues to local authorities on such schemes; and if he will make a statement. [12222]

  Mr. Robertson
  Local authorities are free to introduce arrangements whereby their tenants can insure their possessions under a block insurance policy arranged by the local authority. A number of authorities operate block insurance schemes. It is open to individual tenants to participate in such schemes if they wish to do so. The Department is currently considering whether guidance to local authorities on this matter is necessary.

  Civil Justice System
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proposals exist to initiate a consultative inquiry into the Scottish civil justice system with a similar remit to that of the recent Woolf inquiry in England and Wales; [12086]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to instigate a fundamental review of the civil justice system in Scotland. [12087]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The civil justice system in Scotland is kept under constant review through standing groups such as the sheriff court rules council and the Court of Session rules council and takes account of initiatives by ministerial and judicial interests.

  The rules of both the Court of Session and sheriff court have recently been reviewed and reforms were introduced into both during 1994. The effects of these changes are being monitored by a research programme and it would be premature to initiate a further fundamental review of the whole system at this time.

  Carbon Monoxide Detectors
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make additional resources available to housing associations to install carbon monoxide detectors in their housing stock; and if he will make a statement; [12219]
  877
  (2) if he will make additional resources available to local authorities to install carbon monoxide detectors in their housing stock; and if he will make a statement; [12218]

  (3) if he will make additional resources available to Scottish Homes to install carbon monoxide detectors in their housing stock; and if he will make a statement. [12217]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Substantial resources have been made available to local authorities and Scottish Homes for investment in public sector housing stock. Decisions about the installation of carbon monoxide detectors are for local authorities and Scottish Homes in the light of their assessments of priorities. Similarly, decisions about the installation of detectors in housing association properties are a matter for each association, but they would be expected to fund such work from their own resources.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the recipients of supplementary allocations from underspend on the NHS budget in each of the past three years; and if he will publish the rules pertaining to the application for an award of such allocations. [12009]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The recipients of the supplementary allocations from underspend on the NHS budget in each of the past three years are as shown in the following table:

  £thousand

  Recipient

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Argyll and Clyde health board

  2,600

  1,815

  1,414

  Ayrshire and Arran health board

  2,000

  871

  1,198

  Borders health board

  750

  443

  363

  Dumfries and Galloway health board

  900

  885

  517

  Fife health board

  1,950

  2,393

  1,074

  Forth Valley health board

  1,500

  884

  842

  Grampian health board

  2,850

  2,367

  1,527

  Greater glasgow health board

  6,100

  5,111

  3,115

  Highland health board

  1,400

  796

  685

  Lanarkshire health board

  3,000

  1,719

  1,671

  Lothian health board

  4,200

  3,330

  2,310

  Orkney health board

  300

  329

  68

  Shetland health board

  200

  197

  74

  Tayside health board

  2,450

  1,914

  1,319

  Western Isles health board

  650

  196

  124

  State Hospital

  —

  220

  —

  Common Services Agency

  —

  280

  —

  Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  —

  185

  —

  Total

  30,850

  23,935

  16,301

  There are no rules pertaining to the application for an award of such allocations. The allocations made to enable health boards to meet national and local priorities are generally made on a weighted capitation basis.

  Sheriff Court
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the timetable for introducing the next two tiers of the full costs recovery programme in civil actions raised in the sheriff court; and what mechanisms exist to monitor the impact of each tier of full cost recovery on the numbers of actions raised in the sheriff court and its effect on access to justice. [120088]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current fee structure is design to recover 100 per cent. of administrative costs and one-third of judicial costs in civil proceedings in the sheriff courts and the supreme courts. There is no set timetable for introducing any further tranche of judicial costs and any such proposal would be laid before the House for approval. The Department regularly monitors the level of business coming before the courts. There is no evidence that fee levels are a deterrent to those wishing to raise actions.

  Mediation
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has(a) to pilot a court-annexed mediation project in the Scottish courts and (b) to introduce a state-funded mediation agency related to court matters. [12091]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. There are existing rules of court which allows cases to be referred for mediation in relation to family actions and these are used approximately 1,000 cases per annum. The sheriff court rules council is currently considering the procedure rules in relation to mediation and conciliation and considering whether there is any need to strengthen these rules.

  Farm Support Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the publicly funded support schemes available to farmers and growers in Scotland giving the amount paid under each scheme for the most recent year for which figures are available. [11966]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information for the latest complete financial year—1994–95—is set out in the table. In 1995–96, organic aid, heather moorland, habitats and set-aside access schemes commenced.

  £million

  Sheep Annual Premium

  90

  Suckler Cow Premium

  49

  Beef Special Premium

  26

  Arable Area Payments

  121

  Milk Quota—Surrender or Reduction

  1

  Environmental Sensitive Areas

  1

  Farm Woodland Schemes

  2

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  40

  Rural Enterprise Programme

  4

  Crofting Counties Agricultural Grants

  3

  Cofters etc. Building Grants and Loans

  5

  Farm and Conservation Grant Schemes

  5

  Other minor Schemes

  1

  Total

  348

  879

  Judiciary
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to(a) allow pursuers/defenders to choose an appropriate member of the judiciary to hear their case, (b) ensure that the judge in each case has an appropriate expertise in the areas of law raised by that case and (c) initiate a wide consultation on the level of judicial salaries. [12089]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In relation to parts(a) and (b) of the question, there are no plans to alter the current arrangements whereby the allocation of judges and sheriffs to particular cases is entirely a matter for the Lord President of the Court of Session or the appropriate sheriff principal. Within our current system there are opportunities for individual sheriffs and judges with particular expertise to be allocated to specific items of business. On part (c), judicial salaries are determined by the Senior Salaries Review Body and there are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of those current local authority councillors who are members of the East, West and North of Scotland water authorities; how much time each annually will spend on each body; and what is the salary paid in respect of each position. [12432]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The following current local authority councillors are members of the water authority indicated:East: Councillor Ian J. Berry, Councillor Ann Dickson, Councillor Ian Galloway, Councillor Tom Kerr and Councillor Pat McCafferty.
  West: Councillor Mungo Bryson, Councillor William Petrie, Councillor Robert R. Reid, Provost Leslie Rosin and Councillor Ian R. Young.
  North: Councillor Raymond Bisset, Councillor Joan Easten, Councillor Nigel J. O. Graham, Councillor Olwyn J. Macdonald and Councillor Donald I. Nicholson.

  Each councillor is expected to devote between 24 and 36 days per annum to his or her duties, and receives £6,000 per annum in remuneration.

  Nuclear Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the requirements for insurance to cover the risk of accidents involving radioactive materials following privatisation of the nuclear industry; what assessment he has made of whether appropriate cover is available from commercial insurance sources; what contingency plans have been drawn up for the Government to continue to cover such risks in the absence of commercial insurance; and what charge would be made to the privatised industry for such state insurance. [12239]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Member to answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Small Business, Industry and Energy, Department of Trade and Industry, on 30 January,Official Report, column 657.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how long a planning appeal to his Department may be outstanding before a public inquiry must be held; and if he will make a statement. [12246]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Planning legislation does not limit the period within which a public inquiry into a planning appeal must be held.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the regulations relating to amendments to a planning application in the appeal process being accepted by the report to the inquiry unit; and what are the inquiry's powers in this respect. [12247]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Planning regulations neither provide for, nor restrict, amendment to planning applications during the appeal process.

  The consideration of applications at appeal is based primarily on the details of the proposal as submitted to and considered by the planning authority. Alteration to the detail of an application at appeal stage may exceptionally be allowed by the reporter provided that parties to the appeal are not prejudiced in any way and the following criteria are satisfied.

  the alteration does not fundamentally alter the nature of the proposed development;
  those parties consulted or notified of the original application are re-consulted or notified in any case where amendment is likely to have significant change in the impact of the development;
  the planning authority and all parties have adequate opportunity to consider the amendments;
  whether the application is solely for change of use, or is an outline application or is for full planning permission for all building and engineering works.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time lapse between the lodging of planning appeals and the holding of a public inquiry. [12252]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Of those planning appeal cases dealt with by public local inquiry in the years 1994 and 1995, the average time lapse between the lodging of the appeal and the commencement of the inquiry was 40 weeks and 31 weeks respectively.

  Gateside Primary School
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the costs associated with the holdings of an opt-out ballot in respect of Gateside primary school. [12755]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To date, the Secretary of State has reimbursed the Gateside primary school board for £225.60 spent on the notice to parents which it is required to place in the press to invite parents to check that their name is on the list to be used in the ballot. The Secretary of State has not yet received an account from Electoral Reform (Ballot Services), which is managing the ballot of parents, or from the school board in respect of its campaign and postal expenses. However, the likely final cost is expected to be slightly less than £900.

  Electorates
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1995,Official Report, column 703, relating to electorates on 16 February 1994, what were the electorates on 16 February 1995 of (a) East Dunbartonshire electoral ward 26, South Lensie/Waterside, (b) those parts of Strathclyde electoral division, 35 Toryglen/Kingspark, included in South Lanarkshire electoral wards 62 Rutherglen West, 64 Bankhead and 65, Spittal/Blairbeth, (c) those parts of Strathclyde electoral division 8 Vale of Leven, included in Argyll and Bute electoral ward, 31 Rhu/Garelochhead/Luss and (d) these parts of Tayside electoral division 31, Sidlaw, included in City of Dundee electoral wards, 13, Menzieshill West, 16 Pitalpin, 17 Ardler, 19 St. Mary's West, 20 Downfield, 27 Fintry North, 29 Whitfield North, 35 Balgillo, and 36 Dalhousie. [12734]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is set out.

  (a) East Dunbartonshire Electoral Ward 26: South Lenzie/Waterside—3,929 electors

  (b) South Lanarkshire:

  Electoral Ward 62: Rutherglen West 3,498 electors

  Electoral Ward 64: Bankhead 3,087 electors

  Electoral Ward 65: Spittal/Blairbeth 1,482 electors

  (c) Argyll and Bute Electoral Ward 31: Rhu/Garelochhead/Luss—350 electors

  (d) City of Dundee:

  Electoral Ward 13: Menzieshill West 116 electors

  Electoral Ward 16: Pita1pin 15 electors

  Electoral Ward 17: Ardler 2 electors

  Electoral Ward 19: St. Mary's West 12 electors

  Electoral Ward 20: Downfield 5 electors

  Electoral Ward 27: Fintry North 18 electors

  Electoral Ward 29: Whitfield North 0 electors

  Electoral Ward 35: Balgillo 38 electors

  Electoral Ward 36: Dallhousie 74 electors

  Source
  Electoral Registration Officers.

  Local Authority Advertising
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs incurred by each Scottish local authority in 1995 on advertising

  NHSiS—In-patient/day case discharges after admission from the waiting list where the wait was greater than one year: non-psychiatric and non-obstetric specialties

  Years ended 31 December 1994 and 19951

  1994

  1995

  Provider

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board Area

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  8

  0.3

  6

  0.4

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  149

  1.6

  119

  1.4

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  0.2

  —

  —

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  309

  2.0

  281

  1.9

  Board Area Summary

  468

  1.4

  407

  1.4

  Ayrshire and Arran health board area

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  176

  1.0

  41

  0.2

  882
  performance indicators under the citizens charter; how many (a) responses and (b) inquiries were received from the public concerning these advertisements; and if the requirement to publish such advertisements will applying in 1996 to those councils which are to be abolished in April. [12500]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested about costs incurred by and responses and inquiries received by local authorities is not held centrally.

  In the light of a direction issued in December 1994 by the accounts commission, in terms of section 1(1) of the Local Government Act 1992, information about the performance of the existing regional, islands and district councils in delivering services during the 1995–96 financial year will require to be published by 31 December 1996. The Government intend to specify, in regulations which will be laid before the House in due course, in each case a successor new council which will be responsible for publishing this information.

  Judicial Remuneration
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current levels of remuneration of(a) stipendiary magistrates, (b) sheriffs, (c) sheriffs principal, (d) Court of Session judges, (e) the Lord Justice Clerk and (f) the Lord President. [12134]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current levels of remuneration are

  (a) £36,576 to £39,180;

  (b) £72,524;

  (c) £85,241;

  (d) £98,957 (Outer House) and £110,137 (Inner House);

  (e) £114,137; and

  (f) £114,874.

  Health Service (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many in-patient/day case episodes had a wait of greater than one year in each NHS hospital trust and health board; and what proportion of the total number of discharges these episodes represent in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [11215]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  883

  NHSiS—In-patient/day case discharges after admission from the waiting list where the wait was greater than one year: non-psychiatric and non-obstetric specialties

  Years ended 31 December 1994 and 19951

  1994

  1995

  Provider

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  228

  1.7

  91

  1.7

  Board Area Summary

  404

  1.3

  132

  0.6

  Borders health board area

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  11

  0.1

  22

  0.3

  Board Area Summary

  11

  0.1

  22

  0.3

  Dumfries and Galloway health board area

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS

  Trust

  268

  2.2

  174

  1.6

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Board Area Summary

  268

  2.2

  174

  1.6

  Fife health board area

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  44

  0.9

  14

  0.3

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  196

  1.6

  95

  0.8

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  323

  3.9

  110

  1.3

  Board Area Summary

  563

  2.2

  219

  0.9

  Forth Valley health board area

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  204

  2.3

  195

  2.4

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  199

  1.5

  194

  1.6

  Board Area Summary

  403

  1.8

  389

  2.0

  Grampian health board area

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  522

  1.7

  399

  1.2

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  79

  1.6

  5

  0.1

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  40

  0.9

  10

  0.2

  Board Area Summary

  641

  1.6

  414

  1.0

  Greater Glasgow

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  —

  —

  2

  0.3

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  1,384

  4.9

  1,048

  3.8

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  456

  2.8

  94

  0.6

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  129

  1.2

  187

  1.6

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  358

  2.5

  411

  3.1

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  100

  1.2

  40

  0.5

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  448

  1.3

  257

  0.8

  Board Area Summary

  2,875

  2.6

  2,039

  1.9

  Highland health board area

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  6

  0.3

  1

  0.1

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  4

  0.2

  3

  0.2

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  237

  1.5

  288

  2.0

  Board Area Summary

  247

  1.3

  292

  1.6

  Lanarkshire health board area

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  88

  0.7

  69

  0.5

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  138

  1.2

  131

  1.2

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  534

  5.4

  143

  1.4

  Board Area Summary

  760

  2.1

  343

  1.0

  Lothian health board area

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  22

  0.4

  27

  0.4

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  28

  0.6

  2

  —

  884 885

  NHSiS—In-patient/day case discharges after admission from the waiting list where the wait was greater than one year: non-psychiatric and non-obstetric specialties

  Years ended 31 December 1994 and 19951

  1994

  1995

  Provider

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  Number

  Percentage of all discharges

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  492

  1.3

  372

  1.1

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  400

  3.1

  204

  1.4

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  136

  0.8

  56

  0.3

  Board Area Summary

  1,078

  1.4

  661

  0.9

  Orkney health board area

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  —

  —

  1

  0.1

  Board Area Summary

  —

  —

  1

  0.1

  Shetland health board area

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  2

  0.2

  3

  0.3

  Board Area Summary

  2

  0.2

  3

  0.3

  Tayside health board area

  Angus NHS Trust

  3

  0.1

  5

  0.1

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  987

  3.3

  663

  2.5

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  121

  1.5

  94

  1.2

  Board Area Summary

  1,111

  2.6

  762

  2

  Western Isles health board area

  Western Isles Health Unit

  1

  0.1

  1

  0.4

  Board Area Summary

  1

  0.1

  1

  0.4

  Other Providers

  342

  73.4

  76

  18.3

  All Providers

  9,174

  2

  5,935

  1.4

  Note:

  1Provisional.

  Source:

  SMR1. Ref: Unit 2/96036. Date: 20 January 1996.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new patients seeking out-patient consultations had a wait greater than nine weeks in each NHS hospital trust and health board; and what proportion

  NHSiS—New out-patient consultation referrals1 where the wait was greater than nine weeks

  Years ended 31 December 19942 and 19953

  1994

  1995

  Provider

  Number

  Percentage of all referrals

  Number

  Percentage of all referrals

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board Area

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  1,540

  20

  1,699

  21.3

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  5,404

  26.5

  5,936

  21.3

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,717

  14.6

  2,299

  16.2

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  221

  5.5

  641

  12.8

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  8,929

  29.8

  13,315

  35.7

  Board Area Summary

  17,811

  24.1

  23,890

  25.9

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board Area

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  272

  12.4

  342

  15.6

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  11,619

  24.4

  7,551

  16.4

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  6,110

  24.8

  5,429

  18.5

  Board Area Summary

  18,001

  24.2

  13,322

  17.2

  Borders Health Board Area

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  22

  2.1

  29

  1.9

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  2,135

  13.9

  3,444

  16.7

  Board Area Summary

  2,157

  13.1

  3,473

  15.7

  886
  of the total number of referrals these patients represent in (a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [11216]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the tables.
  887

  NHSiS—New out-patient consultation referrals1 where the wait was greater than nine weeks

  Years ended 31 December 19942 and 19953

  1994

  1995

  Provider

  Number

  Percentage of all referrals

  Number

  Percentage of all referrals

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board Area

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospital NHS

  Trust

  6,145

  25.8

  6,195

  27.2

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  6

  1.4

  8

  0.9

  Board Area Summary

  6,151

  25.3

  6,203

  26.2

  Fife Health Board Area

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,165

  31.3

  2,462

  32.1

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  11,484

  32.3

  11,229

  27.8

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  7,234

  32.7

  9,031

  35.5

  Board Area Summary

  20,883

  32.3

  22,722

  30.9

  Forth Valley Health Board Area

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  37

  7.5

  164

  10.0

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  7,707

  30.9

  7,549

  26.2

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  4,743

  19.7

  6,132

  22.5

  Board Area Summary

  12,487

  25.2

  13,845

  24.0

  Grampian Health Board Area

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  20,560

  34.2

  24,109

  33.6

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,446

  30.8

  4,049

  31.3

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  210

  4.1

  552

  9.4

  Board Area Summary

  25,216

  31.7

  28,710

  31.7

  Greater Glasgow Health Board Area

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  7,670

  36.5

  10,725

  42.3

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  16,716

  32.1

  22,126

  33.0

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS

  Trust

  1,579

  18.2

  2,308

  22.2

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  7,209

  24.3

  11,338

  32.4

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  6,337

  23.9

  8,371

  24.8

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  9,696

  29.4

  13,685

  30.0

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  8,563

  40.8

  10,673

  37.2

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  10,598

  22.6

  18,655

  31.5

  Board Area Summary

  68,368

  28.6

  97,881

  32.1

  Highland health board area

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  1,101

  19.4

  1,212

  19.1

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  1,271

  15.1

  1,400

  15.1

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  6,293

  26.1

  6,869

  23.3

  Board Area Summary

  8,665

  22.7

  9,481

  21.0

  Lanarkshire health board area

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,132

  25.6

  7,199

  24.0

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  357

  14.2

  506

  15.7

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  7,955

  24.4

  11,012

  24.2

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,358

  27.1

  11,813

  28.2

  Board Area Summary

  21,802

  25.3

  30,530

  25.3

  Lothian health board area

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  2,171

  16.3

  2,774

  15.6

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  253

  3.4

  237

  7.5

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  1,161

  12.5

  1,330

  10.5

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  18,564

  26.9

  24,431

  28.8

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  6,607

  25.6

  6,833

  20.6

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  5,438

  22.3

  6,603

  20.5

  Board Area Summary

  34,194

  22.9

  42,208

  23.0

  Orkney health board area

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  102

  4.9

  157

  5.8

  Board Area Summary

  102

  4.9

  157

  5.8

  888 889

  NHSiS—New out-patient consultation referrals1 where the wait was greater than nine weeks

  Years ended 31 December 19942 and 19953

  1994

  1995

  Provider

  Number

  Percentage of all referrals

  Number

  Percentage of all referrals

  Shetland health board area

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  549

  16.4

  684

  16.7

  Board Area Summary

  549

  16.4

  684

  16.7

  Tayside health board area

  Angus NHS Trust

  2,528

  18.9

  3,225

  20.4

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  675

  15.2

  792

  14.7

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  16,192

  26.2

  17,382

  23.7

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,088

  16.7

  5,676

  19.6

  Board Area Summary

  23,483

  22.6

  27,075

  21.9

  Western Isles health board area

  Western Isles Health Unit

  1,067

  22.3

  913

  15.9

  Board Area Summary

  1,067

  22.3

  913

  15.9

  Other/NK Providers

  67,191

  24.7

  96

  13.4

  All Providers

  328,127

  25.6

  321,190

  26.1

  Notes:

  1. Excludes Accident and Emergency and Genito Urinary Medicine specialities

  2. The collection of the provider of service was not mandatory until 1 April 1994 therefore presented referral totals may be lower than the actual activity during 1994—the large number of "other/NK providers" illustrates this.

  3. Provisional.

  Source:

  SMRO. Ref: Unit 2/96037.

  Date: 21 January 1996.

  Hospitals (Patient Care)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals in Scotland in which a system has been devised under which a named nurse or midwife is responsible for an individual patient's care while in hospital. [11217]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All hospitals.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of patients in Scottish hospitals had a named nurse or midwife responsible for their hospital care in December 1995. [11218]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Full implementation of the named nurse in Scotland is to be achieved by June 1997. Health boards have agreed targets with provider units working towards 100 per cent. coverage. At December 1995 the average coverage across Scottish hospitals was 89 per cent.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Scottish gross domestic produce per head as a percentage of the United Kingdom average in each year since 1978. [13153]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The latest available estimates are shown in the following table. Figures for 1994 were published in the article "Regional accounts 1994: part 1" in the December 1995 edition of "Economic Trends". The article includes revisions to data on GDP per head for earlier years and an explanation of the reasons for the revisions. Copies of "Economic Trends" are available in the Library.
  890

  GDP per head at factor cost: current prices: Scotland 1978–1994 (UK=100)1

  Number

  1978

  94.9

  1979

  94.8

  1980

  94.4

  1981

  96.7

  1982

  96.3

  1983

  96.8

  1984

  95.8

  1985

  96.0

  1986

  94.6

  1987

  94.5

  1988

  93.7

  1989

  93.5

  1990

  95.8

  1991

  97.2

  1992

  98.8

  1993

  98.9

  19942

  99.9

  Notes:

  1United Kingdom (less Continental Shelf)=100.

  2Provisional.

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office, Regional Accounts.

  Burns Statue, London
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who made the proposal that a wreath be laid at the Burns statue in London on 31 January; what it was proposed to commemorate; who was responsible for sending out invitations; who was invited to attend; what is the estimated cost of the event; who will be responsible for covering the cost; and what was the purpose of the event. [12961]
  891
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I was first approached in July 1995 by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who had been discussing with Enterprise Ayrshire the possibility of marking the bicentenary of the death of Robert Burns with a ceremony at the Burns statue in London. I was happy to participate in what was one of a number of events taking place on 31 January in London and, as requested, to lay a commemorative wreath. The administrative arrangements are matters for the hon. Member for Ayr, whose constituency contains the birthplace of Robert Burns. I understand that invitations were issued to all Members of Parliament for Scottish constituencies.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he intends to make to the cash limits and running costs provision for 1995–96 within his responsibility. [13545]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, I intend to make changes to eight voted cash limits, three non-voted cash blocks and five running costs limits:

  The cash limit element for class XIV, vote 1, agriculture and fisheries, Scotland will be reduced by £3,000,000 from £131,167,000 to £128,167,000 to take account of slower than expected take-up of measures aimed at providing support in special areas.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 2, training programmes, roads and transport services, industrial and regional support, Scotland, will be reduced by £7,967,000 from £962,881,000 to £954,914,000. The reduced cash limit takes account of a transfer to the Department of Transport reflecting a decrease in requirement of £9,766,000 for grants to Strathclyde passenger transport authority to meet the costs of supporting rail services resulting from the restructuring of the railways; and the need to provide a non-voted external financing limit of £1,600,000 for the Scottish Transport Group. It also reflects increased provision of £3,000,000 transferred from class XIV, vote 1, to address pressure on the motorways and trunk roads current expenditure programme; and additional provision of £400,000 to meet costs resulting from the privatisation of the electricity industry which will be met from the proceeds of privatisation.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 5, housing and environmental services, Scotland will be increased by a net total of £213,000 from £416,704,000 to £416,917,000. This reflects a reduction in housing support grant provision by £340,000, an increase in grant in aid to Scottish Homes of £169,000, provision of £176,000 transferred to class XIV, vote 8, and a net increase of £560,000 in gross running cost provision for Historic Scotland, from £15,821,000 to £16,381,000, reflecting the take-up of end year flexibility. Further increases in provision of £161,000 are offset fully by increased appropriations in aid. There is an increase in grant in aid provision for Scottish Natural Heritage of £1,000,000 which is offset fully by savings within the vote.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 7, revenue support grant and payment of non-domestic rates, etcetera, Scotland will be increased by £256,000 from
  892
  £4,974,997,000 to £4,975,253,000. The increase is a transfer from DSS class XIII, vote 2, in respect of residual housing benefit for Kirkcaldy and East Kilbride district councils following the recent transfer of new towns housing stock.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 10, law, order, miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland, will be increased by a net total of £358,000 from £315,773,000 to £316,131,000. The changes include a net transfer of £341,000 to the Scottish police college current provision from class XIV, vote 9, in respect of police superannuation. There is also a number of minor transfers within the vote and from other votes within the Scottish Office. The running cost provision decreases by £580,000 from £150,909,000 to £150,329,000.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 12, hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland will be decreased by £9,416,000 from £3,161,003,000 to £3,151,587,000. This is due to: a transfer of £10,000,000 to class XIV, vote 11, to provide for increased expenditure on family health services, mainly drugs costs; a transfer of £11,000 to the health part of Class XIV, vote 10, for the Mental Welfare Commission; and an increase of £595,000 as a result of a transfer from the non-voted element of the NHS trusts' external financing limit. This, together with other transfers within vote 12, means that the NHS trusts' external financing limit will be increased by £6,702,000 from £36,403,000 to £43,105,000. Overall, the above changes will have no effect on provision for the Scottish health programme.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 18, Scottish Office administration, is being increased by £1,327,000 from £174,607,000 to £175.934,000. Within this total, the running cost provision for Scottish Office administration is being increased by £619,000 from £153,120,000 to £153,739,000 as a result of transfers from Property Holdings, from an agreed claim on the reserve covering the Scottish Office apportionment for rent registration costs arising from housing benefit changes, less an intra vote transfer. The capital provision is also being increased as a result of a transfer from Property Holdings less an inter vote transfer and a technical transfer from running costs.

  The Scottish Office running cost limit—covering votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 18—is increased by £608,000 from £339,608,000 to £340,216,000. In addition to the changes referred to, running cost provision on vote 1 will increase by £9,000.

  The cash limit for class XIV, vote 19, Scottish Record Office is being increased by £1,641,000 from £5,459,000 to £7,100,000. Within this total, the Scottish Record Office running cost limit is being increased by £641,000 from £5,586,000 to £6,227,000 and results from a transfer from Property Holdings and the take-up of 50 per cent. marginal extra receipts.

  The non-voted cash limit SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, is to be increased by £6,911,000 from £592,392,000 to £599,303,000, reflecting take-up of end year flexibility. The non-voted cash limit SO/LA2 which covers housing capital expenditure by local authorities and capital expenditure by new towns will be increased by

  893
  £4,841,000 from £229,973,000 to £234,814,000. This reflects take-up of capital end year flexibility of £5,010,000 and a transfer of provision to Scottish Homes of £169,000, for which a complementary increase is included in the spring supplementary estimate for class XIV, vote 5. The non-voted cash limit SO/ERDF which covers European regional development fund payments in Scotland will be increased by £10,025,000 from 110,000,000 to £120,025,000 reflecting the take-up of end year flexibility.

  All the increases will be offset by savings, transfers from other votes or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  After-school Care Initiative
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money will be available in Scotland in 1996–97 for the after-school care initiative. [7742]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: The out-of-school child care initiative has offered good value for money in its first three years of operation, with 5,467 places created in Scotland to date. The scheme will continue to be delivered in Scotland until March 1999 by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Around £500,000 will be made available for each of the three years.

  General Practitioners (Rural Areas)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioners were practising in rural areas in Scotland in(a) 1990 and (b) 1995. [11583]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1996]: The numbers of general medical practitioners working in rural areas in Scotland at 1 October 1990 and 1 October 1995 were 394 and 441 respectively.

WALES

  Ministerial Visits (Schools)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authority (i) nursery, (ii) infants, (iii) primary and (iv) high schools he visited in 1995. [9073]

  Mr. Hague
  I have visited the following schools in 1995:Primary

  Llanfihangel Rhydithon Primary, Llandrindod Wells, Powys.

  Caerleon Endowed Junior School (V.A.), Caerleon, Gwent.

  Secondary

  Ysgol Gyfun Gwynllyw, Trevethin, Gwent.

  Bassaleg Comprehensive School, Bassaleg, Gwent.

  Darland High School, Rossett, Clwyd.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many private schools he visited in 1995. [9074]
  894
  Mr. Richards
  During 1995, no visits were made to independent schools by my right hon. Friend, but I visited Craig-y-Parc—Scope—school, Pentyrch, mid-Glamorgan and Llandovery college, Dyfed. I also visited Penrhos-Rydal college in my constituency as the local Member of Parliament.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the total in grants paid to opted-out schools in Wales was in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [10725]

  Mr. Richards
  The information on a financial year basis is as follows:

  LMS element

  Central services element

  School meals element

  Total annual maintenance grant

  1992–93

  3,687,648

  561,195

  83,423

  4,332,266

  1993–94

  12,123,231

  1,785,845

  200,096

  14,109,172

  1994–95

  19,259,649

  2,238,152

  464,948

  21,962,749

  Special purpose grants

  Capital grants

  Total

  1992–93

  208,708

  516,967

  5,057,941

  1993–94

  1,002,942

  6,195,751

  21,307,865

  1994–95

  849,768

  7,349,278

  30,161,795

  Annual maintenance grant is recouped from the local authority in which the school is situated.

  Trade Missions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will name, by company title and head office address, the companies which participated in the Welsh trade mission to Indonesia and the specific products they were promoting; [11812]

  (2) what appraisal is made of the human rights conditions in countries which are to be visited under the auspices of the Welsh Office trade mission programme; [11814]

  (3) what information on human rights issues was given to participants in the recent trade mission to Indonesia; [11817]

  (4) what steps were taken to inform participants in the Welsh Office trade mission to Indonesia of the human rights conditions in that country. [11815]

  Mr. Hague
  The following companies participated on the Indonesian leg of the recent Welsh Office trade mission to Indonesia and Singapore.

  Company name and address

  Products

  Biocatalysts Ltd. Main Avenue

  Enzyme technologies

  Treforest Industrial Estate

  Pontypridd

  Mid glamorgan

  CF37 5UT

  895

  Company name and address

  Products

  NCM Credit Insurance Ltd.

  Export credit insurance

  3 Harbour Drive

  Capital Waterside

  Cardiff

  CF1 6TZ

  Boride Ceramics and

  Metal borides

  Composites Ltd.

  Lake Road

  Leeway Industrial Estate

  Newport

  Gwent

  NP9 0SR

  Tedea Huntleigh Europe Ltd.

  Load cells

  37 Portmanmoor Road

  Cardiff

  CF2 2HB

  Conren International

  Construction materials

  Redwither Road

  Wrexham Industrial Estate

  Wrexham

  Clwyd

  LL13 3RD

  British Rototherm Co.Ltd.

  Instrumentation

  Kenfig Industrial Estate

  Margam

  Port Talbot

  SA13 2PW

  TODO Products Ltd.

  Industrial valves

  14 Pontyfelin Avenue

  New Inn

  Pontypool

  Gwent

  NP4 0DQ

  Soundscape Digital

  Audio equipment

  Technologies

  Crichton House

  Mount Stuart Square

  Cardiff

  CF1 6DR

  Procter, Johnson and Co. Ltd.

  Pigments

  Excelsior Works

  Castle Park

  Evans Street

  Flint

  CH6 5NT

  Laurence, Scott and

  Electrical roating machines and

  Electromotors Ltd.

  control gear

  PO Box 25

  Hardy Road

  Norwich

  NR1 1JD

  Technical Support and Supplies

  Ltd.

  Unit 1, Falcon House

  Kinmel Park

  Royal Welsh Avenue

  Bodelwyddan

  Clwyd

  LL18 5TYlsolators for street

  lighting

  896

  Company name and address

  Products

  Cambrian Mapping Services

  Maps

  Ltd.

  Mayfield

  Lanbadoc

  Usk

  Gwent

  NP5 1BT

  Cambrian SE Asia Ltd.

  Geotechnical services

  Mayfield

  Lanbadoc

  Usk

  Gwent

  NP5 1BT

  Pinacl Communications Systems

  Telecommunications

  Ltd.

  Kinmel Park

  Bodelwyddan

  Clwyd

  LL18 5TZ

  Merton Wire Ltd.

  Aluminium wire

  11 Cyfarthfa Industrial Estate

  Merthyr Tydfil

  CF47 8PE

  EFE International Ltd.

  Marketing services

  7–11 Kensington High Street

  London

  W8 5NP

  Trade missions are essentially commercial events in which individual companies develop contacts with potential partners in the target market.

  Members of this mission were provided with briefing about the commercial situation in Indonesia.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he raised the question of human rights during his recent visit to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [11818]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) on 26 January,Official Report, column 478.

  Patient Death (Legal Action)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what legal action is outstanding in the case of Patient C, subject of an inquest in north Wales. [11926]

  Mr. Richards
  I believe that no legal action is outstanding in respect of the High Court proceedings commenced by originating summons which resulted in a declaration leading to the withdrawal of mechanical feeding and the consequent death of Patient C, who had been in a persistent vegetative state. Further legal action is involved in connection with the inquest which is due to be resumed and it is also possible that further legal action will take place if claims are pursued in the courts on behalf of C's estate or family, but the Welsh Office has no direct knowledge concerning such claims.

  School Funding (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what capital funding allocations have been made to local education authority schools for the new unitary authority of Flintshire for 1996–97. [12421]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Flintshire county council has been issued with a basic credit approval of £66.441 million for 1996–97, which allows borrowing for any capital purpose including schools. Essentially the Government provide moneys, and borrowing approval to local government on an unhypothecated basis and it is up to the council to determine the use of such resources.

  In addition, Hawarden high school, Deeside, has been awarded funding of £250,000 commencing in 1995–96 under the technology schools initiative. Of this £120,000 will be issued to Flintshire county council in 1996–97 as a supplementary credit approval.

  Under the popular schools initiative supplementary credit approval of £155,000—phased over three years from 1995–96—has been offered to Clwyd local education authority and Flintshire county council in respect of an extension to Ewloe Green county primary school.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish new guidelines for planning in Wales. [12687]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Comments on the draft planning policy guidance (Wales) documents issued in July have been thoroughly evaluated and my right hon. Friend will be making a decision shortly on what planning policy guidance to publish in Wales.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact on his Department's work priorities of the advice to Her Majesty's Government contained in the second report of the Government's panel on sustainable development. [12686]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government are considering this report and will respond shortly.

  Nutrition Task Force
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 599, what plans he has to set up a nutrition task force and a low income project team for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [13148]

  Mr. Hague
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales has pioneered a range of programmes to help people in Wales, including those on low incomes, to eat more healthily. I have no plans to establish a nutrition task force or low income project team for Wales to duplicate the work already undertaken by HPW.

  NHS EstateCare
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 599, on what date the decision was taken to instruct the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to invite bids from the private sector for NHS EstateCare. [13146]

  Mr. Hague
  My department wrote to the chairman of the authority on 16 August 1995 confirming my predecessor's decision to privatise the current function of EstateCare group. The conduct of the process, including the seeking and evaluation of bids, is a matter for the authority.

  University Hospital of Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from the director of the NHS in Wales to the chief executives of the South Glamorgan health authority and the University Hospital of Wales NHS trust received on 29 January, concerning the proposed transfer of accident and emergency facilities from the Cardiff royal infirmary to the University hospital of Wales. [13151]

  Mr. Hague
  Copies of the relevant decision letter have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chief executive of University hospital of Wales concerning the(a) private and (b) public funding of the (i) new multi-level access road and (ii) new accident and emergency services; on what criteria he proposes to judge private sector offers to design, build, finance and operate the two projects; and if he will make a statement. [13149]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for the trust in producing an acceptable business case which will then be tested for private sector interest.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has discussed with the chief executive of the University hospital of Wales concerning the means of acquiring land for the construction of the access road across the A48 in connection with the transfer of accident and emergency services from the Cardiff royal infirmary to the University hospital of Wales; and what estimate he has made of the time required for such land acquisition by(a) voluntary and (b) compulsory means. [13150]

  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for the trust in consultation with the local planning authority.

  Crickhowell House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he expects Crickhowell house to be available with vacant possession for sub-letting. [12942]

  Mr. Hague
  No date has been fixed.

  Urban Investment Grant
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what urban investment grant he has awarded(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) this financial year; and if he will give the same information for grants awarded by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. [12943]
  899
  Mr. Hague
  A list of all projects awarded urban investment grant, by the Welsh Office, in 1994–95 and 1995–96 is in the following tables. Cardiff Bay development corporation did not make any awards of urban investment grant in the period.

  Table 1: Urban investment grants awarded 1994–95

  Project and location

  Grant awarded £

  Industrial development: Gresford Industrial Estate, Wrexham

  600,000

  Retail development: Bridgend Bus Station site

  150,000

  Offices: Broncoed Business Park, Mold

  175,000

  Offices: Gordon Street, Pembroke Dock

  111,000

  Offices: High Street Bargoed

  47,000

  Industrial: Trecenydd Business Park, Caerphilly

  220,000

  Commercial: Vauxhall Dealership, Tredegar

  152,000

  Residential: Swan Road, Port Talbot

  34,000

  Residential: Hopefield Street, Newport

  37,600

  Residential: East Street, Trallwn, Pontypridd

  90,000

  Residential/retail: Red Garages site, Llandudno

  315,000

  Offices, John Street, Carmarthen

  158,000

  Retail: Church Street, Abertillery

  125,000

  Residential: Elmwood Grove, Tredegar

  166,000

  Offices/retail/carpark: St Catherine's Corner, Pontypridd

  1,000,000

  Retail: Milford Haven Retail Park

  1,600,000

  Retail: Former Carlton Cinema, Swansea

  400,000

  Retail: Howards Furnishers, Ebbw Vale

  50,000

  Residential: Main Road, Llantwit Fardre

  60,000

  Table 2: Urban investment grant awarded 1995–96 (to 31 January 1996)

  Project and location

  Grant awarded £

  Retail development: Bethel Square, Brecon

  530,000

  Retail/commercial/residential development: Castle Hotel, Bangor

  1,100,000

  Bingo/Leisure Club: Mariners Wharf, Newport

  250,000

  Residential development: Main Road, Cadoxton

  230,000

  Industrial/office development: J K Smit Factory, Colwyn Bay

  100,000

  Industrial: Duffryn Industrial Estate, Ystrad Mynach

  57,000

  Residential development: Crown Road, Maesteg

  180,000

  Offices: Park Street, Ammanford

  66,000

  Residential development: Penrhys Estate, Rhondda

  65,000

  Retail/commercial development: The Walk, Ebbw Vale

  750,000

  Office/commercial development: The Old Courthouse, Bridgent

  152,000

  Residential development: Ann Street, Cilfynydd

  77,000

  Retail/residential development: Rich Way, Brecon

  88,000

  Retail development: Pentre Felin, Wrexham

  3,500,000

  NHS trust long-term loans

  Date of loan

  Trust

  Amount £

  Number of years

  Interest rate Per cent.

  Balance outstanding £

  1993–94

  4 February 1994

  Clwydian community care

  250,000

  20

  6.500

  231,250

  15 March 1994

  South and East Wales ambulance

  600,000

  9

  6.875

  500,001

  15 March 1994

  Llandough hospital

  2,727,000

  20

  7.500

  2,522,475

  15 March 1994

  Glan Clwyd hospital

  1,515,000

  20

  7.500

  1,401,375

  15 March 1994

  Powys health care

  2,215,000

  20

  7.500

  2,048,875

  15 March 1994

  Glan Hafren

  3,830,000

  20

  7.500

  3,543,750

  15 March 1994

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,023,000

  20

  7.500

  1,871,275

  Health Authorities (VAT)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the financial position of health authorities with respect to the windfall recovery of VAT; and what correspondence he has had with health authorities in this regard. [12944]

  Mr. Hague
  It is the responsibility of registered organisations within the NHS to account for VAT. Advice about VAT was last given to the NHS in Wales on 12 December 1994. This gave advance notice of a change in the registration arrangements from 1 April 1995.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent guidance on fluoridation he has issued to Welsh health authorities; and what discussions he has had with those authorities and with Welsh Water to update it. [12945]

  Mr. Hague
  The most recent guidance to health authorities in Wales on fluoridation is contained in the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain" of November 1992. The protocol advises that health authorities should give high priority to water fluoridation. Welsh Office officials discuss fluoridation issues with health authorities from time to time. I have had no discussions with the chairman of Welsh Water on this issue.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent guidance he has issued to health authorities on the definition of a(a) district and general hospital, (b) local general hospital, (c) neighbourhood hospital and (d) cottage hospital; and if he will list each non-psychiatric hospital in Wales and specify which category it falls into. [12946]

  Mr. Hague
  I have issued no guidance of this kind as in most cases the definitions involved are clear to the service. A list of hospitals in Wales was published in appendix II of "Health Statistics, Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all loans outstanding by NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will specify the terms on which the loans were arranged and the dates of commencement and final repayment of principal. [12947]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the following table.
  901

  NHS trust long-term loans

  Date of loan

  Trust

  Amount £

  Number of years

  Interest rate Per cent.

  Balance outstanding £

  15 March 1994

  Gwent community health

  3,000,000

  20

  7.500

  2,775,000

  15 March 1994

  Bridgend and district

  4,700,000

  20

  7.500

  4,197,500

  15 March 1994

  Clwydian community care

  1,463,000

  20

  7.500

  1,353,275

  18 March 1994

  Carmarthen and district

  2,345,000

  20

  7.500

  2,227,750

  18 March 1994

  Pembrokeshire

  500,000

  20

  7.500

  475,000

  21 March 1994

  Swansea

  1,063,000

  20

  7.500

  1,009,850

  24 March 1994

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  289,000

  20

  7.750

  274,550

  25 March 1994

  Pembrokeshire

  170,000

  20

  7.750

  161,500

  1994–95

  31 August 1994

  Llandough hospital

  1,000,000

  20

  8.875

  975,000

  9 September 1994

  Morriston hospital

  1,182,191

  20

  9.000

  1,152,636

  15 September 1994

  Clwydian community care

  2,000,000

  20

  9.250

  1,950,000

  15 September 1994

  Morriston hosptial

  1,200,000

  20

  9.250

  1,170,000

  15 September 1994

  Swansea

  2,000,000

  20

  9.250

  1,950,000

  15 September 1994

  Glan Hafren

  2,000,000

  20

  9.250

  1,950,000

  28 September 1994

  Llandough hospital

  1,000,000

  20

  9.250

  975,000

  29 September 1994

  Pembrokeshire

  323,000

  20

  9.250

  314,925

  12 December 1994

  Clwydian community care

  2,000,000

  20

  8.875

  1,950,000

  6 January 1995

  North Wales ambulance

  290,000

  7

  8.875

  269,286

  16 January 1995

  Swansea

  300,000

  20

  9.000

  292,500

  16 January 1995

  Powys healthcare

  900,000

  20

  9.000

  877,500

  27 January 1995

  Gwynedd community

  400,000

  20

  9.125

  390,000

  30 January 1995

  Llandough hospital

  1,000,000

  20

  9.125

  975,000

  1 February 1995

  Morriston hospital

  600,000

  20

  8.875

  585,000

  7 February 1995

  Gwent community health

  2,000,000

  20

  8.875

  1,950,000

  8 February 1995

  Morriston hospital

  500,000

  20

  8.875

  487,500

  9 February 1995

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  200,000

  20

  8.875

  195,000

  13 February 1995

  Llandough hospital

  1,000,000

  20

  8.875

  975,000

  15 February 1995

  Swansea

  1,300,000

  20

  9.000

  1,267,500

  15 February 1995

  Bridgend and district

  4,471,000

  20

  9.000

  4,359,225

  20 February 1995

  Clwydian community care

  1,000,000

  20

  9.000

  975,000

  22 February 1995

  Gwynedd community

  600,000

  20

  9.000

  585,000

  27 February 1995

  Gwynedd community

  400,000

  20

  9.000

  390,000

  6 March 1995

  Llandough hospital

  3,249,000

  20

  9.000

  3,167,775

  8 March 1995

  Glan Clwyd

  1,344,000

  20

  9.000

  1,310,400

  9 March 1995

  Ceredigion and mid Wales

  254,000

  20

  9.000

  247,650

  15 March 1995

  Powys health care

  500,000

  20

  9.000

  487,500

  15 March 1995

  Gwynedd community

  2,444,000

  20

  9.000

  2,382,900

  15 March 1995

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  566,000

  20

  9.000

  551,850

  15 March 1995

  Velindre

  243,000

  20

  9.000

  236,925

  15 March 1995

  Clwydian community care

  3,071,000

  20

  9.000

  2,994,225

  15 March 1995

  Swansea

  1,118,000

  20

  9.000

  1,090,050

  15 March 1995

  Carmarthen and district

  1,949,000

  20

  9.000

  1,900,275

  15 March 1995

  Derwen

  1,124,000

  20

  9.000

  1,095,900

  15 March 1995

  South and East Wales ambulance

  281,000

  9

  8.875

  265,389

  15 March 1995

  Mid Glamorgan ambulance

  265,000

  9

  8.875

  250,278

  15 March 1995

  Morriston

  2,000,000

  20

  9.000

  1,950,000

  15 March 1995

  Llandough hospital

  184,000

  20

  9.000

  179,400

  15 March 1995

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,182,000

  20

  9.000

  2,127,450

  15 March 1995

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,000,000

  10

  8.875

  1,900,000

  15 March 1995

  Glan Hafren

  1,185,000

  20

  9.000

  1,155,375

  15 March 1995

  Nevill Hall

  89,000

  20

  9.000

  86,775

  15 March 1995

  Gwynedd hospitals

  2,500,000

  20

  9.000

  2,437,500

  23 March 1995

  East Glamorgan

  1,044,000

  20

  8.750

  1,017,900

  24 March 1995

  North Wales ambulance

  197,000

  7

  8.500

  182,929

  24 March 1995

  Morriston

  2,579,809

  20

  8.750

  2,515,314

  29 March 1995

  Gwynedd hospitals

  291,000

  20

  8.750

  283,725

  2 May 1995

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  200,000

  20

  8.750

  —

  15 June 1995

  Swansea

  600,000

  20

  8.3750

  —

  3 July 1995

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  100,000

  20

  8.6250

  —

  14 July 1995

  Swansea

  1,200,000

  20

  8.3750

  —

  15 August 1995

  Swansea

  1,360,000

  20

  8.5000

  —

  30 August 1995

  East Glamorgan

  272,000

  20

  8.3750

  —

  5 September 1995

  Clwydian community care

  3,000,000

  20

  8.2500

  —

  15 September 1995

  Mid Glamorgan ambulance

  150,000

  9

  7.6250

  —

  15 September 1995

  Carmarthen and district

  1,000,000

  20

  8.2500

  —

  15 September 1995

  Glan Hafren

  1,000,000

  20

  8.2500

  —

  15 September 1995

  East Glamorgan

  612,000

  20

  8.2500

  —

  25 September 1995

  Gwent community health

  1,200,000

  20

  8.1250

  —

  25 September 1995

  Llandough hospital

  1,000,000

  20

  8.1250

  —

  27 September 1995

  UHW healthcare

  1,300,000

  20

  8.2500

  —

  902 903

  NHS trust long-term loans

  Date of loan

  Trust

  Amount £

  Number of years

  Interest rate Per cent.

  Balance outstanding £

  28 September 1995

  Gwynedd community health

  800,000

  20

  8.2500

  —

  28 September 1995

  Nevill Hall and District

  632,000

  20

  8.2500

  —

  24 October 1995

  Gwent community helath

  300,000

  20

  8.5000

  —

  25 October 1995

  East Glamorgan

  646,000

  20

  8.5000

  —

  30 October 1995

  South and East Wales ambulance

  750,000

  10

  8.000

  —

  2 November 1995

  UHW Healthcare

  1,900,000

  20

  8.3750

  —

  22 November 1995

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  100,000

  20

  8.1250

  —

  24 November 1995

  South and East Wales ambulance

  1,000,000

  10

  7.5000

  —

  29 November 1995

  East Glamorgan

  544,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  8 December 1995

  Clwydian community care

  500,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  15 December 1995

  Swansea

  1,200,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  15 December 1995

  North Wales ambulance

  301,000

  7

  6.8750

  —

  18 December 1995

  Gwent community health

  650,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  21 December 1995

  East Glamorgan

  272,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  11 January 1996

  Gwynedd community health

  200,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  11 January 1996

  East Glamorgan

  204,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  18 January 1996

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  200,000

  20

  7.7500

  —

  24 January 1996

  East Glamorgan

  340,000

  20

  7.7500

  —

  29 January 1996

  Gwent community health

  400,000

  20

  7.7500

  —

  30 January 1996

  Gwynedd community health

  600,000

  20

  7.8750

  —

  No repayments of principal have been made to date for loans issued in financial year 1995–96.

  Primary Care (Out-of-hours Centres)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with health authorities concerning the provision of out-of-hours centres for primary care and the issuing of new guidelines with respect to such centres; and if he will make a statement. [12948]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials met representatives of family health services authorities on 2 November 1995 to discuss the new arrangements for delivering GP out-of-hours services. The arrangements provide an opportunity for GPs to organise their emergency services in ways that will maintain and improve patient care.

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department's officialS received a copy of the draft report produced by the auditors of Pembrokeshire NHS trust, Coopers and Lybrand, into the circumstances leading up to, and the financial implications of, the departure of the chief executive of the Pembrokeshire NHS Trust in 1994. [13002]

  Mr. Richards
  Welsh Office officials received a copy of a draft on 30 June 1995. Questions arising on the draft were raised by officials who are now considering a further draft. Whether a final report is submitted at a future date to the Secretary of State will be for the Audit Commission to determine.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the cash limits for his Department and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales for the current year. [13543]

  Mr. Hague
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit on class XV, vote 1 will be reduced by £1,799,000 from £24,557,000 to £22,758,000; the cash limit on class XV,904
  vote 2 will be reduced by £4,256,000 from £659,934,000 to £655,678,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 3 will be increased by £5,500,000 from £561,690,000 to £567,190,000; the cash limit on class XV, vote 5 will be reduced by £2,724,000 from £1,789,920,000 to £1,787,196,000 and the cash limit on class XV, vote 7 will be reduced by £500,000 from £8,746,000 to £8,246,000.

  The decrease in the cash limit for vote 1 arises mainly from a transfer of a forecast underspend on cash limited agricultural grants to the resources for demand-led agricultural grants including hill livestock compensatory allowances and compensation payments for the control of animal diseases.
  The net reduction in the cash limit for vote 2 comprises mainly a transfer of £750,000 from class I, vote 3 for the local initiative fund and a transfer of £5,000,000 to class XV, vote 3.

  The cash limit increase on vote 3 relates to a transfer from class XV, vote 7 for Welsh Office administration capital and a transfer from class XV, vote 2 for the central Government roads programme.

  The cash limit reduction on vote 5 results mainly from a transfer from cash limited resources within the vote to meet higher than forecast expenditure on demand-led family health services.

  The decrease in the cash limit for vote 7 results from fewer than expected tenders being received for school inspections.

  None of the proposed changes adds to the overall level of public expenditure.

  Dance and Drama Students (Funding)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities have sought from her Department improved funding for students of dance and drama in the past two years. [10349]
  905
  Mr. Forth
  The Department is in frequent contact with local authorities to discuss a wide range of issues. It is not possible to identify from the Department's records every instance in which the issue of funding for dance and drama students may have arisen during the course of those discussions. However, my right hon. Friend has within the past two years received letters from Lancashire and Sutton local authorities proposing that a wider range of dance and drama courses should be designated for mandatory awards.

  Schools (Balances)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, by local education authority, the total amount of balances held by schools in England according to the latest figures. [11747]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the aggregate balances held by the schools maintained by each local education authority in England at the end of the financial year 1994–95.

  LEA

  School Balances £000

  Avon

  13,422

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,681

  Barnet

  4,763

  Barnsley

  2,795

  Bedfordshire

  7,512

  Berkshire

  8,334

  Bexley

  1,973

  Birmingham

  16,319

  Bolton

  2,416

  Bradford

  4,084

  Brent

  4,234

  Bromley

  3,036

  Buckinghamshire

  9,030

  Bury

  2,311

  Calderdale

  1,975

  Cambridgeshire

  8,784

  Camden

  4,737

  Cheshire

  15,314

  City of London

  54

  Cleveland

  8,611

  Cornwall

  9,007

  Coventry

  6,643

  Croydon

  4,905

  Cumbria

  2,026

  Derbyshire

  8,467

  Devon

  9,325

  Doncaster

  3,751

  Dorset

  6,635

  Dudley

  1,207

  Durham

  7,001

  Ealing

  2,393

  East Sussex

  8,218

  Enfield

  6,026

  Essex

  25,252

  Gateshead

  1,859

  Gloucestershire

  6,743

  Greenwich

  4,781

  Hackney

  2,324

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,493

  Hampshire

  25,921

  Haringey

  2,896

  Harrow

  1,693

  Havering

  4,445

  Hereford and Worcester

  12,294

  Hertfordshire

  20,832

  906

  LEA

  School Balances £

  Hillingdon

  2,297

  Hounslow

  4,963

  Humberside

  9,713

  Isle of Wight

  1,325

  Isles of Scilly

  43

  Islington

  3,394

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,155

  Kent

  14,553

  Kingston

  890

  Kirklees

  2,825

  Knowsley

  2,216

  Lambeth

  5,308

  Lancashire

  32,096

  Leeds

  3,892

  Leicestershire

  13,154

  Lewisham

  3,921

  Lincolnshire

  7,178

  Liverpool

  7,705

  Manchester

  -1,365

  Merton

  4,503

  Newcastle

  5,443

  Newham

  4,640

  Norfolk

  9,262

  North Tyneside

  439

  North Yorkshire

  11,543

  Northamptonshire

  10,061

  Northumberland

  3,075

  Nottinghamshire

  14,959

  Oldham

  516

  Oxfordshire

  11,955

  Redbridge

  3,111

  Richmond

  2,648

  Rochdale

  577

  Rotherham

  1,101

  Salford

  3,048

  Sandwell

  5,420

  Sefton

  6,049

  Sheffield

  3,619

  Shropshire

  4,864

  Solihull

  4,253

  Somerset

  7,678

  South Tyneside

  1,898

  Southwark

  3,852

  St. Helens

  4,163

  Staffordshire

  12,381

  Stockport

  3,456

  Suffolk

  11,487

  Sunderland

  1,781

  Surrey

  12,109

  Sutton

  2,092

  Tameside

  1,293

  Tower Hamlets

  6,733

  Trafford

  556

  Wakefield

  3,135

  Walsall

  2,807

  Waltham Forest

  3,857

  Wandsworth

  3,567

  Warwickshire

  6,987

  West Sussex

  4,489

  Westminster

  2,928

  Wigan

  5,320

  Wiltshire

  6,549

  Wirral

  2,572

  Wolverhampton

  4,036

  1. The figures (derived from the LMS outturn statements for 1994–95 published by LEAs under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988) cover all county, voluntary and special schools. Prior to 1994–95 special schools were covered by LMS only in the case of 8 LEAs

  2. All figures represent surpluses net of deficits.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost per place of delivering NVQ levels 1, 2 and 3 for(a) the unemployed funded by training and enterprise councils and (b) those in work attending further education courses or day release. [12753]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available.

  Jobcentres (Advertised Pay Rates)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average pay rate on offer at each jobcentre in England for the latest week for which figures are available. [12841]

  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 R. D. Horne to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 31 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the average pay rate on offer at each Jobcentre in England. In the absence of Mr Fogden I have been asked to reply.
  The Employment Service does not collect regular figures on wage rates of vacancies held by Jobcentres.
  However, research has been undertaken on advertised vacancies in February 1994 which gave the following estimates for Great Britain, based on those vacancies for which wages and hours were given (ie not those open to an element of negotiation). These show that at that time 11% of vacancies were for hourly rates of pay of £2.50 or below, 47% for £2.51–3.50, 27% for £3.51–£4.50, 8% for £4.51–£5.50 and 7% for over £5.50. Research on the value of vacancy circulation is being carried out at present and is expected to be published by the summer. It is expected to provide some further, limited information on wage rates of Jobcentres vacancies.
  I am sorry that I cannot be of more help.

  School Premises Regulations
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she expects to lay new drafts of the Education (School Premises) Regulations before Parliament; and what the time scale will be for their coming into effect. [13080]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We expect to lay the revised Education (School Premises) Regulations before Parliament in February. Subject to the consent of Parliament, they will take effect 21 days later.

  Public Supplies Contract Legislation
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what occasions her Department received correspondence from the European Commission during the review of public supplies contract legislation in 1992, on the subject of what preferential schemes were in operation in the United Kingdom; when her Department responded to this consultation; and at what point her Department informed the European Commission that the priority suppliers scheme was in operation. [12917]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The European Commission was informed in 1981 that the priority suppliers scheme was in operation. The Department did not receive any 908
  correspondence from the European Commission on the subject of preference schemes during the consolidation and revision of the supplies directive in 1992.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the range of accommodation for play groups which is likely to qualify for the scheme for nursery vouchers. [12918]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To qualify for initial validation to redeem nursery vouchers, all play groups must be registered under part X of the Children Act 1989. As such, their accommodation and facilities should comply with the guidance on premises in volume 2 of the Children Act guidance and regulations.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amount of European social fund money is currently being held in reserve by the European Commission; and what reasons have been given for a reserve being put on this funding. [13079]

  Mr. Forth
  Some 3,377 million ecu are available for spending in Great Britain under objectives 3 and 4 of the structural funds between 1994 and 1999. The objective 3 plan for 1994 to 1996 period, which was agreed with the European Commission, provided for 1,501 million of that money to be spent in the UK. The remaining 1,876 million ecu are available for spending in Great Britain under objectives 3 and 4 of the structural funds between 1997 and 1999. The plans for spending that money will be negotiated this year.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes she has made to cash limits and running cost limits on votes within her responsibility for the year 1995–96. [13546]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class V, vote 1, employment programmes and central services; class V, vote 2, Department for Education and Employment: Employment Service; class X, vote 1, schools research and miscellaneous services; class X, vote 3, Department for Education: administration; and class X, vote 5, Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, will be amended as follows:

  Class

  Vote

  Existing cash limit

  Change

  New cash limit

  V

  1

  2,122,564,000

  9,480,000

  2,132,044,000

  V

  2

  906,952,000

  -8,600,000

  898,352,000

  X

  1

  735,483,000

  -75,000

  735,408,000

  X

  3

  90,295,000

  -2,000,000

  88,295,000

  X

  5

  98,152,000

  -12,875,000

  85,277,000

  The cash limit for class V, vote 1 will be increased by £9,480,000 from £2,122,564,000 to £2,132,044,000. This is as a result of a running costs transfer of £11,600,000 from the Employment Service—£2,700,000 for

  909
  jobseeker's allowance consultancy costs and £8,900,00 to cover restructuring costs—offset by a transfer of £1,983,000 to the Department for Social Security class XIII, vote 1 for youth training provision; and additional receipts in respect of a recovery of VAT on consultancy fees totalling £138,000. A new net subhead is also being added to the vote for agency payments on behalf of the European regional development fund. The increase will be offset by transfers and a charge to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The running costs limit for class V, vote 1 will increase by £4,992,000 from £294,401,000 to £299,393,000 as a result of the transfer of running costs of £11,600,000 from the Employment service class V, vote 2, offset by a transfer of £6,608,000 to the Department for Trade and Industry class IX, vote 1, as part of the machinery of government changes announced on 5 July 1995.

  The cash limit for class V, vote 2, will be reduced by £8,600,000 from £906,952,000 to £898,352,000. The running costs limit for that vote will be reduced by £12,600,000 from £1,023,060,000 to £1,010,460,000. This is as a result of transfers of £11,600,000 to class V, vote 1 in respect of additional jobseeker's allowance consunltancy costs and restructuring costs, and of £1,000,000 to the Department of Social Security in respect of salary costs of staff transferred to the Benefits Agency. This decrease is offset by capital transfers of £2,000,000 from class X, vote 3 and the take-up of £2,000,000 under the capital end year flexibility scheme from class V, vote 1 in respect of labour market system infrastructure requirements and rationalisation of the Employment Service estate.

  The gross running costs limit for the Department for Education and Employment is reduced by £7,608,000 from £1,403,916,000 to £1,396,308,000 as a result of the running costs changes to class V, votes 1 and 2.

  The cash limit on class X, vote 1 will be reduced by £75,000 from £735,483,000 to £735,408,000 as a result of a transfer of £25,000 to the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England to cover the costs of setting up an inspection framework for institutions intending to take part in the new arrangements for the education of the under-fives and a transfer of £50,000 to the Department of Social Security to cover work undertaken in connection with the new under-fives arrangements.

  Payments will be made from class X, vote 1 to capita, the body selected to administer the new under-fives arrangements, to cover the setting-up costs of the new scheme. There will be no change in the net provision on the vote as a result.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 3 will be reduced by £2,000,000 from £90,295,000 to £88,295,000. This is as a result of the transfer of £2,000,000 of capital provision to the Employment Service class V, vote 2.

  The cash limit for class X, vote 5 will be decreased by £12,875,000 from £98,152,000 to £85,277,000. This is as a result of a reduction in forecast expenditure on the inspection of schools. The running costs limit will be increased by £25,000 from £28,451,000 to £28,476,000.
  910
  This is to allow a transfer of £25,000 from class X, vote 1, to cover the costs of setting up an inspection framework for the pre-school sector.

  The opportunity is also being taken to increase provision for appropriations in aid to class X, vote 5 of additional receipts in the form of VAT refunds. This is to offset increased payments resulting from greater contracting out to the private sector. There will be no change in the net provision as a result.

  The planned total of public expenditure for these votes is reduced by £14,070,000 as a result.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for his Department and each of the agencies for which he is responsible if it uses the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol for(a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion. [11909]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service, is signing up in the near future to use the symbol for external recruitment and internal recruitment and promotion.

  The non-agency areas of the Cabinet Office have been putting procedures in place to make the five commitments. These will be introduced in the next two months. This will qualify the Department to use the symbol.

  The Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency has also put the relevant procedures in place and intend to use the symbol from February 1996.

  The Buying Agency uses the symbol for external recruitment purposes.

  The Security Facilities Executive has declared an intention to follow the Cabinet Office's lead in introducing the symbol.

  The other OPS agencies, Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationary Office have not yet considered using the symbol.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are employed in(a) the Prime Minister's Office and (b) his own office; and what percentage are disabled. [12228]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  For these purposes, the Prime Minister's Office and my own form part of the Cabinet Office. The latest available figures showing disability in the Department relate to 1 April 1995. They showed that, of the 1,549 staff in the Cabinet Office—excluding executive agencies—at the time, 49 staff, 3.1 per cent., had a disability. However, this was before the machinery of government changes of July 1995 which had an impact on the Department's organisation. The Department is about to undertake a new survey of
  911
  disability among its staff in preparation for adopting the positive about disabled people symbol. I shall write to the hon. Member when the results are available.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) to date and (b) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11371]

  Mr. Willetts
  Information on consultancy expenditure is not held centrally and can be provided only for earlier years at disproportionate cost. The expenditure on external consultants for 1993–94, 1994–95, year to date and estimated expenditure for the whole of 1995–96 is shown as follows:

  Cabinet Office (including 10 and 12 Downing street)

  Office of Public Service, and agencies

  1993–94

  5,936,200

  1994–95

  5,969,000

  Year to date

  3,272,400

  1995–96 estimated total

  7,276,000

  A large part of these totals was consultancy to CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems.

  HMSO

  COI

  1993–94

  1,061,000

  66,700

  1994–95

  1,750,700

  162,200

  Year to date

  827,000

  21,400

  1995–96 estimated total

  1827,000

  132,400

  1HMSO financial year: 1 January to 31 December.

  Detailed estimates for 1996–97 are not currently available.

  Consultants are used in a variety of activities designed to produce different types of benefits, not just cost saving.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines for 1995–96 to date; and if he will list the publications purchased. [11508]

  Mr. Willetts
  This information, and similar information for earlier years, can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Regulations and Directives
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the EU regulations and directives which will not be enforced in the United Kingdom(a) in part and (b) as a whole. [13081]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's policy is to implement EC legislation in an effective, timely and proportionate manner. The enforcement regime adopted in each case should impose least burden on business and others affected.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on changes to the 1995–96 cash limit and running costs limit for the Office of Public Service. [13542]

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Office of Public Service, class XVIII, vote 1, will be increased by £1,636,000 from £53,713,000 to £55,349,000 and the gross running cost limit will he increased by £291,000 from £78,830,000 to £79,121,000. The changes reflect the transfers of the Security Facilities Executive Agency and the Buying Agency from the Department of the Environment—class VII, vote 8, the Office of Science and Technology being transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry and the deregulation unit and competitiveness division being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry. Provision is also made for the privatisation of executive agencies. SAFE will have a net running cost limit of zero.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department and his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-used properties for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [11506]

  Mr. Willetts
  Until 1 April 1996, responsibility for Cabinet Office empty and under-used property on the common user estate falls to Property Holdings Division of DoE.

  For the years in question, there has been no vacant space within Nos. 10 to 12 Downing street or the central Cabinet Office estate in London. Over this period, only HMSO had empty or under-used departmental estate. The costs were as follows:

  1979: Not available

  1989: Nil

  1991: Nil

  1993: £137,300

  1994: £252,800

  1995: £88,700

  1996: £34,825 (January-March).

  After 1 April 1996, responsibility for Cabinet Office property on the CUE will fall to the Department. It is forecast that the estimated cost to the Cabinet Office of empty and under-used properties in 1996–97 will be £2,035,739, consisting of HMSO; Crown buildings, Basingstoke; and Leatherhead road, Chessington:

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps are being taken to eliminate the sale of nation lottery tickets to under-age children. [10581]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Secretary of State has, under section 11 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, issued a direction to the Director General of the National Lottery,
  913
  that no license should be granted which authorises the promotion of any lottery which does not allow for sufficient controls to prevent persons who have not attained the age of 16 from participating. I have therefore asked the director general to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  British Library
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the contractors involved in the British Library project. [11989]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  According to records held by the Department of National Heritage, the following organisations and individuals are, or have previously been, directly under contract to the Department or its predecessors in respect of the British library construction project:

  Abbeywood Floor Coverings Ltd.

  AE Hadley Ltd.

  Allaway Acoustics

  Allsop

  Archbell Greenwood Structural Engineers

  Argent Building Services Ltd.

  ARI Propafloor Ltd.

  Arthur Syddall (Grantham) Ltd.

  Atlantis Fine Art and Architecture Supplies Ltd.

  A to Z Couriers Ltd.

  Avondale Construction Ltd.

  AW Elliot and Co. (Steeplejacks) Ltd.

  Baco Contracts Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty Ltd.

  Balmforth Engineering Ltd.

  Baris Dry Lining Ltd.

  Bellow Machine Co. Ltd.

  Bolte (UK) Ltd.

  Bolton Gate Company Ltd. (formerly Bolton Brady Ltd.)

  British Engine Insurance Association Ltd.

  British Rail Ltd.

  Briton Poole and Burns Ltd.

  Brophy Construction plc

  Bruce Nivison

  Bruynzeel Storage Systems Ltd.

  Building Management Southeast

  Business Gas plc

  Byrne Bros (Formwork) Ltd.

  Cambridge Asphalt Co. Ltd.

  Carlton Waller Ltd.

  Carpet Services (Surrey) Ltd.

  Carter and Co. (London) Ltd.

  Chubb Fire Ltd.

  CJ O'Shea Construction Ltd.

  Clark and Fenn Ltd.

  Clarke Instruments Ltd.

  Colin St. John Wilson and Partners

  Colt International Ltd.

  Coverite (Asphalters) Ltd.

  Cranfield Logistics Ltd. (formerly the National Materials Handling Centre)

  914

  Curtis Steel Ltd.

  Custom Metal Fabrication Ltd.

  Davis Langdon and Everest

  Diespeker Interiors Ltd.

  Direction Group Air Conditioning Ltd.

  Dormar Mechanical Services Ltd.

  Drake and Scull Engineering Ltd.

  Dun and Bradstreet Ltd.

  Durable Contracts Ltd.

  E. Conies and Son Ltd.

  East and Son Ltd.

  Eastern Electricity plc

  Elizabeth Burney-Jones

  Envopack Group Sales Ltd.

  Eurolog Ltd.

  Expanded Piling Co. Ltd.

  F. Brooks Ltd.

  F. Smith and Son (Grimsby) Ltd.

  Facade Hoists Ltd.

  Farren and Sons Ltd.

  FE Beaumont Ltd.

  FHC Plant Maintenance (formerly Flowerhouse Craigwell Ltd.)

  Fondedile Foundations Ltd.

  Forster Metallbau Gmbh

  Forward Catering Ltd.

  FP Fire Protection Services Ltd.

  FW Bull and Son (Construction) Ltd.

  G. Dew and Co. Ltd.

  G and H McGill Ltd.

  Glasbau Hann GMBH and Co. KG

  Gormley (Marble Specialists) Ltd.

  Greenwood Airvac

  Griffiths McGee Demolition Ltd.

  Guthrie Allsebrook and Co. Ltd.

  Hacker Young

  Haden Technology Ltd.

  Haden Young Ltd.

  Hawes Signs Ltd.

  Heath Fielding Ltd.

  Higgs and Hill Southern Ltd.

  HJ Wedge and Sons Ltd.

  How Fire Ltd.

  Interfaceé Europe Ltd.

  Intermove Services Ltd.

  Irvine Whitlock Ltd.

  Jacklin Decorators Ltd.

  James R. Knowles

  Jandor Metal Doors Ltd.

  JL Joinery Ltd.

  John Mowlem and Co. plc

  John Rowlson (Engineers) Ltd.

  John Smith and Sons

  Jonathan James Ltd.

  Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering Ltd.

  Keller Colocrete Ltd.

  Keltbray Ltd.

  Kenneth Eaton Associates

  Kenneth Oldham-Smith

  915

  Kittridge Flooring Ltd.

  Laing Management Ltd.

  LH Rothwell Associates

  Lilley Construction Ltd.

  London Borough of Camden

  London Electrify plc

  London Underground Ltd.

  Mark Hammond Design

  Martin Drake

  McGill Insulation Group Ltd.

  McGinley Construction Services Ltd.

  McKenna and Co.

  Miles Carter Ltd.

  Mobil Gas Marketing (UK) Ltd.

  MPG Contracts Ltd. (formerly MPG Plastering Ltd.)

  MW and RW Bacon Ltd.

  Nick Artim

  North London Dry Lining Ltd.

  Norwest Holst Civil Engineering Ltd.

  Norwest Holst Construction Southern Ltd.

  Nuclear Electric plc

  O and K Escalators Ltd.

  Octavius Atkinson and Sons Ltd.

  Ove Arup and Partners

  PA Consulting Group Ltd.

  Pembridge Builders Ltd.

  Plescon Ltd.

  Plumb Bespoke Shopfitting Ltd.

  Pollards Fyrespan Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse Ltd.

  Princeton plc

  Project Fire Engineering Ltd.

  PSA Specialist Services

  Quest Insulation Ltd.

  Richardson Roofing Co. Ltd.

  Rivermeade Signs Ltd.

  Robinson Metalwork (Luton) Ltd.

  Rust Consulting Ltd. (formerly Kennedy & Donkin Building Services Ltd.)

  Samuel Elliott and Sons Ltd.

  Shanahan Dover Systems Ltd.

  Shapland and Petter Ltd.

  Sharrocks (London) Ltd.

  Sindall Joinery Ltd.

  Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd.

  Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd./Haden Young Ltd. Joint Venture

  Situsec Contractors Ltd.

  Spectra Engineering Ltd.

  Stitson White Services Ltd.

  Strather Construction Ltd.

  Stuarts Industrial Flooring Ltd.

  Syston Rolling Shutters Ltd.

  TA Consultancy Services Ltd.

  Tarmac Construction Ltd.

  Tarmac Servicemaster

  TB V Consult (formerly PSA Projects)

  Terry Hedgeland

  Thames Water plc

  916

  The Buying Agency (formerly the Crown Suppliers)

  The Expanded Piling Co. Ltd.

  The Express Lift Co. Ltd.

  The Paint Research Association

  The Steensen Varming Mulcahy Partnership Ltd.

  Thrope Model Makers

  Trafalgar House Interiors Ltd.

  Trench Farrow and Partners

  Trident Safeguards Ltd.

  WA Dawson Ltd.

  Wallis Joinery Ltd.

  WB Simpson and Sons Ltd.

  Wembley Roofing Ceilings Ltd.

  William Steward London Ltd.

  Wiltshier Construction (London) Ltd.

  Wiltshier Construction Ltd.

  WM and RW Bacon Ltd.

  WS Harvey (Decorators) Ltd.

  YAY Brightside Ltd. (Formerly Young Austen and Young Ltd.)

  Note:

  Does not include sub-contractors.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what inquiries she has instigated into the delay to the British library project; what reports she has received from those inquiries; and what measures have been taken as a consequence. [11990]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The primary cause of delay to this project has been the need to identify and specify the technical changes required to deal with problems discovered since 1991. In particular, these relate to the mobile bookshelving, the low voltage cabling, and the fire protection system. I and my predecessors have commissioned leading experts to report on the issues and we have received a number of technical reports. As a consequence, the key changes which have been made, or are in the process of being made, include the replacement of faulty components in the bookshelving, at the contractor's expense; the repair and replacement of cabling, where necessary and practicable, and the installation of automatic fuse switches to protect the cabling system; and changes to the fire protection system to reduce the likelihood of corrosion, and improve effectiveness.

  Millennium Site, Greenwich
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will consider themes or other suggestions, brought to her attention by(a) hon. Members, (b) organisations and (c) members of the public, which add to those which have already, or will be, submitted by Imagination Ltd. relating to the proposed exhibition on a site, or sites adjacent or near to, that designated by the Millennium Commission on the Greenwich peninsula. [11734]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: 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.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) her Department, (b) her Department's agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95, (iii) 1995–96 and (iv) 1996–97. [11509]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The available information is given in the following table:

  1993–94 actual £

  1995–95 actual £

  1994–96 spend to date £

  1996–97 estimate £

  Department of National Heritage

  18,277

  14,967

  20,795

  n/a

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  16,800

  16,313

  32,394

  n/a

  Royal Parks Agency

  8,926

  23,862

  14,819

  12,150

  Information on non-departmental public bodies is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her estimate of the expenditure of her Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97. [11512]

  Mr. Sproat:
  The available information is given in the following table:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  Department of National Heritage

  99,152

  161,396

  132,518

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  4,567

  14,605

  18,135

  Royal Parks Agency

  Nil

  Nil

  2,000

  Information on non-departmental public bodies is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Estimated figures for 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97. [11510]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Expenditure on administration for my Department is included in the expenditure plans table which is published in the annual report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Eurimages Scheme
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the impact on film production companies arising from the United Kingdom's withdrawal from participation in the Eurimages scheme; and if she will make a statement. [12714]
  918
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: I am confident that the very high quality of production facilities in this country, along with the excellent skills of those working in the industry, and the distribution value of the English language, will continue to make the British product truly competitive, and British production companies much sought after as co-production partners supported by the European co-production fund which my Department sponsors.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations took place prior to the announcement of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Eurimages scheme; and with whom. [12713]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Normal confidentiality requirements as to the contents of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement and my Department's spending plans did not allow for prior consultation.

  Ms Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many United Kingdom production companies received awards from Eurimages in each year of the United Kingdom's participation in the scheme; what were the total amounts received each year; and if she will provide a breakdown by (a) nation and (b) region within the United Kingdom. [12711]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The UK joined Eurimages in April 1993. The number of films awarded Eurimages funding and involving UK co-production companies since April 1993 was 12 in 1993, 21 in 1994 and 22 in 1995, and the total amounts awarded were FF23.3 million—£2.66 million—FF45.05 million—£5.45 million—and FF48.15 million—£6.138 respectively.
  The information necessary to provide a breakdown by (a) nation and (b) region within the United Kingdom is unavailable.

  Ms Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the estimated savings which are expected for 1996–97 as a result of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Eurimages scheme; and if she will make a statement. [12715]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: My Department's contribution to Eurimages in 1995–96 was £2 million. The rate of exchange against the French Franc indicates that the subscription for 1996–97 would have been £2.6 million.

  Ms Cunningham:
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many film production companies were awaiting a determination on funding from Eurimages when the United Kingdom withdrew from the scheme; and if she will provide a breakdown by (a) nation and (b) region within the United Kingdom. [12712]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: There were no Eurimages funding decisions involving UK companies outstanding when we announced our intention to withdraw from the scheme last November.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
  To ask the Secretary of State for. National Heritage what is her estimate of the annual cost to her Department and her Department's agencies and

  919
  non-departmental public bodies of their empty and under-used properties for (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97. [11511]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: My Department, which was created in April 1992, occupies properties which form part of the common user estate. The Department of the Environment will provide central figures covering all common user estate vacant space.

  Of my two agencies, only the Royal Parks, formed in April 1993 has any vacant or under-used space, all of which are park buildings, the majority greenhouses. The cost of maintaining these net of VAT is as follows:

  1993–94: £12,300,00

  1994–95: £11,500.00

  1995–96: £26,700.00

  1996–97: £4,400.00 (estimated)

  To provide this information for the properties for which my non-departmental public bodies are responsible could be achieved only by incurring disproportionate cost.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the surplus or deficit in her museums and galleries account for 1994–95; and what is the estimated surplus/deficit for 1995–96. [12705]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The surplus on this vote for 1994–95 was £2,117,638.77. Full details were published in the appropriation account for class XI, vote 1 (HC 15-VIII of 1995–96), copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Provision for 1995–96 is given in section A of class XI, vote 1—Department of National Heritage (Programme expenditure and administration), HC 271-XI of 1994–95—copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Northern and Yorkshire Outpost Headquarters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated capital cost of acquiring the site, building and commissioning the new headquarters building of the northern and Yorkshire outpost of the NHS executive; what is the estimated annual revenue cost of the capital or leasing charges for the building; who will own it; when it will open; and how many people will work in it. [11113]

  Mr. Malone
  The estimated capital cost of the new headquarters building for the northern and Yorkshire regional office in Durham is £2.54 million. This is more than offset by the proceeds from the sale of one of the existing regional health authority's former headquarters buildings in Harrogate of £2.825 million. The accommodation charge will. not be determined until the building is complete but, on the basis of comparison with other Department of Health regional headquarters buildings, this move will result in minimum revenue savings of £300,000 per annum. The freehold of the building will be owned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The building is expected 920
  to be complete for handover on 29 April 1996, ahead of schedule. One hundred and thirty staff will work in the building.

  Prescriptions (Students)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the effect on a student's entitlement to free prescriptions of(a) the award of and (b) taking out a student loan through the Student Loans Company; [12099]

  (2) which categories of student are not entitled to free prescription charges. [12098]

  Mr. Malone
  Those in full-time education between the ages of 16 and 18 are entitled to free national health service prescriptions.

  Any student aged 19 or over who is not entitled to free NHS prescriptions on health grounds may make a claim to the national health service low income scheme for free prescriptions on an income-related basis.

  Student loans have been an integral element of the provision made from public funds for student support since September 1990. Wherever a loan would be available to a student, it is taken into account as a resource in assessing entitlement to help through the low income scheme.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated annually for mental illness specific grants since 1990, showing in each year the amount contributed(a) by central Government and (b) by local authorities, including the amounts projected for the next two years. [12295]

  Mr. Bowis
  The table shows the amount of mental illness specific grant allocated in each year since the grant was introduced in 1991–92 showing the sums contributed by central and local government for each year. The table also shows the amounts projected for 1996–97. The figures assume that local authorities will take up the full amount of grant made available to them in 1995–96 and 1996–97. The figures for 1991–92 to 1994–95 represent actual expenditure.

  The contribution from central Government includes an amount, currently £2.2 million, which helps to fund the homeless Mentally ill initiative in London.

  The circular announcing the arrangements for the 1996–97 MISG will be published shortly.

  £million

  Year

  Total contribution from central Government

  Amount of central Government's contribution taken up by local authorities

  Local authority contribution

  Total expenditure

  1991–92

  21

  18.9

  7.8

  26.7

  1992–93

  31.4

  30.8

  12.8

  43.6

  1993–94

  34.4

  34.4

  14

  48.4

  1994–95

  36

  36

  14.5

  50.5

  1995–96

  47.3

  47.3

  19.3

  66.6

  1996–97

  58.3

  58.3

  21.3

  79.6

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 17 January,Official Report, column 671, (1) of the 80,000 beds how many are psychiatric hospital beds; [12293]

  (2) whether the 20,000 acute beds referred to are (a) psychiatric hospital beds and (b) included within the figure of 80,000 beds referred to at the same time, or additional to that figure. [12294]

  Mr. Bowis
  The figure of 80,000 refers to the number of beds in hospital and residential units for mentally ill people. This figure includes some 66,000 hospital beds of which some 20,000 are "acute" or "short-stay" beds.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations have been carried out by the NHS on individuals over the age of 65 years during the past 12 months. [12330]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest year for which information is available is 1993–94. The number of finished consultant episodes for hip replacement and other arthroplasty of the hip operations, carried out on patients aged 65 years and over, in England during that period was 45,570.

  Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much NHS trusts and general practitioner practices pay Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. of Loughborough for the use of the Read clinical coding system broken down by(a) trust and (b) family health services authority. [12749]

  Mr. Horam
  The Read codes are Crown copyright and there is no change to the national health service for their use.

  National Health Service users of Read codes pay Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. for support and distribution services only. These services are charged under a formula agreed with the Department of Health, subject to a permitted cost plus mechanism to ensure value for money and audited annually by external auditors acting for the Department of Health.

  The annual sums payable by users for support and distribution services are:
  general practitioners—£75 per practice.
  Family health services authorities—normal charges are £75 per computer screen in each authority.
  Trust/unit users are charged according to usage: the current annual charge is £3,691.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the NHS receives each year from Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd.; when the contract comes up for renewal; and if the current contracted arrangement will remain unchanged after renewal. [12751]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service receives no payment from Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. in respect of its work in distributing and supporting the use of Read codes within the service.
  922
  The contract for this work, between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. is subject to annual audit by external auditors acting for the Department of Health to ensure value for money. It is three-year rolling contract, subject to continuing review.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the contractual relationship between Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. and the NHS centre for coding and classification. [12750]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no direct contractual relationship between Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd. and the NHS centre for coding and classification; however, there is a contract for the distribution and support of the use of Read codes between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Computer Aided Medical Systems Ltd.

  Cardiac Surgical Centres
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received from the Royal College of Surgeons about supra-regional paediatric cardiac surgical centres. [12493]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has received no formal representation from the Royal College of Surgeons about supra-regional paediatric surgical services. The supra-regional services advisory group sought the advice of the Royal College of Surgeons when considering whether the service should remain designated. In the event, the group recommended that the service should no longer be designated from 31 March 1994.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist for supra-regional cardiac surgical centres to report or account to his Department. [12498]

  Mr. Horam
  The only supra-regional cardiac service currently designated is that for thoracic—cardiac and lung—transplantation. The supra-regional services advisory group is responsible for managing the SRS arrangements and for monitoring designated units performance against contract. Designated units provide the SRSAG with monthly activity reports and an annual report giving additional information about performance. The SRSAG makes recommendations on any changes to the supra-regional service arrangements through the national health service executive to me.

  Neo-natal Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has given during the last five years to(a) the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust and (b) other bodies about the performance of neo-natal arterial switch operations at Bristol royal infirmary. [12494]

  Mr. Horam
  The performance of specific clinical procedures is a matter of clinical judgment on which it would not generally be appropriate for my Department to advise. In the case of the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust however, my Department's advice was sought on how to resolve a difference of clinical opinion about the advisability of proceeding with "switch" operations. My Department's advice was that procedures should not be, performed about which concerns had been raised until appropriate expert clinical advice had been obtained.
  923
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations his Department has received during the last five years about the performance of neo-natal arterial switch operations at Bristol royal infirmary, from(a) the Royal College of Surgeons, (b) Dr. Steven Bolsin, (c) other medical professional bodies and (d) other bodies. [12495]

  Mr. Horam
  My Department has received a number of expressions of concern from Dr. Steven Bolsin and others about the difficulty of resolving professional differences of opinion about the performance of certain paediatric cardiac surgical procedures, including the arterial "switch".

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of which health authorities in the South Western region refer patients needing neo-natal cardiac surgery to health care providers other than Bristol royal infirmary. [12496]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairmen of the appropriate health authorities for this information.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish comparative statistics showing the success rate of neo-natal arterial switch operations at those hospitals or institutions performing such operations within the NHS during the last five years. [12497]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. Outcomes of treatment are a matter for clinical audit.

  Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects in Newcastle and North Tyneside health authority for which business cases have been submitted to the NHS executive since 1 April 1995 indicating for each(a) the location, (b) the projected cost and (c) the date on which the business case was received. [12752]

  Mr. Horam
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits and running cost limits of his Department in 1995–96. [13717]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cash limit for class XII, vote 1—hospital, community health, family health services and related services, England—will be increased by £68,671,000, from £26,539,964,000 to £26,608,635,000. This allows for an increase of £210,159,000 in respect of the take-up of entitlements to carry forward of underspends from the 1994–95 financial year under the end year flexibility arrangements as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995,Official Report, columns 776–82, partially offset by £140,082,000 following a reappraisal of drugs budget requirements. In addition, the following transfers will take place; £1,145,000 to class XV, vote 5—national health service, Wales—for services provided by the London post-graduate teaching hospital, £1,050,000, and for operating costs of the NHS Supplies Authority, £95,000;
  924
  £8,000 to the Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland in respect of services provided by the London post-graduate teaching hospital as mentioned and £253,000 to class XII, vote 2—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—for day care and domiciliary services, £106,000, for research work undertaken on behalf of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, £248,000, partially offset by £101,000 for work of the NHS Estates agency.

  The cash limit for class XII, vote 2—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—will be increased by £628,000, from £1,279,378,000 to £1,280,006,000. This increase allows for transfers of £253,000 from class XII, vote 1 as mentioned, £212,000 from class XIII, vote 4—Department of Social Security, administration and miscellaneous services—for the headquarters recreational association, £62,000 running costs; and for storage and distribution costs, £150,000 running cost; and £169,000, running costs, from class XVII, vote 1—HM Treasury—for superannuation costs. The overall increase is partially offset by transfers of £3,000 to class XIV, vote 14—national health service (superannuation etc.), Scotland; £2,000 to class XV, vote 5—national health service, Wales—and £1,000 to DHSS, Northern Ireland, for services provided by the NHS Estates agency.

  The Department's gross running costs limit will be reduced by £4,436,000 from £239,350,000 to £234,914,000. This reflects a reallocation of £4,817,000 for capital works partially offset by the transfers mentioned.

  All increases will either be offset by savings, increased receipts or transfers to or from other votes or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Nutrition and Low Incomes
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Departments were represented in the work of(a) the nutrition task force and (b) the low income project team. [13152]

  Mr. Horam
  Department of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department for Education and Employment and the Office of Science and Technology are represented on the nutrition task force; Welsh Office, DHSS Northern Ireland, Scottish Home and Health Department and the Department of Social Security have observer status. Department of Health and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are presented on the low income project team and the Department of Social Security has observer status.

  Family Planning
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implementation of guidelines laid down by the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority; and if he will make a statement. [13011]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 19 October 1995,Official Report,

  925
  column 367. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is required to maintain a code of practice about the proper conduct of licensed activities. The current code was laid before the House on 14 December 1995.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the viability of human embryos following freezing. [13009]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 26 January,Official Report, column 415. The Department of Health has not commissioned such research.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inspections have been carried out on licensed in vitro fertilisation centres in the last two years; and if all such centres have been inspected in that period. [13010]

  Mr. Horam
  Between 30 January 1994 and 30 January 1996 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority made 256 inspections of licensed IVF centres. All such centres were inspected during that period.

  Pharmaceutical Imports
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the value of prescribed products which are imported from overseas having been manufactured in the United Kingdom: and of what savings are achieved as a result of not purchasing direct from a United Kingdom manufacturer. [13078]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Bed and Staff Shortages (Liverpool)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he received the letter from the Liverpool Central and Southern community health council respecting bed and staff shortages and the problems of accident and emergency units at Liverpool hospitals; what response he has made; what action he plans to take; and if he will make a statement. [13082]

  Mr. Horam
  We received the letter on Monday 15 January and I expect to reply shortly. My reply will include a full explanation of the measures which the national health service has implemented to deal with the recent high levels of demand.

  Intensive Care (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will arrange for additional funding from his Department to be made available to provide more intensive care and high dependency beds in Bradford; if he will discuss with the regional health authority the funding of intensive care and high dependency beds in Bradford from the authority's unrenewable resources budget; and if he will make a statement. [12955]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Bradford health authority. The national health service executive's Northern and Yorkshire regional office has asked health authorities to give a high priority to intensive care provision.

  Nurses
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the proportion of nursing staff that are(a) full time and (b) bank or temporary in each hospital trust in the north-west region. [10466]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The information will be placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the expenditure of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on all external consultants including management consultants for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will estimate the savings accruing to his Department from the use of consultants in each of these years. [11335]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The Department of Health and its agencies have spent the following amounts from running costs on consultancy:

  1991–92: £24,258,000

  1993–94: £15,933,037

  1994–95: £18,479,405

  1995–96: £11,100,000 (to date)

  Expenditure of some £17 million is estimated for the whole of the 1995–96 financial year. Estimates of expenditure for 1996–97 are not yet available.

  Details of consultancy expenditure for 1979–80 and 1989–90 are not available, the Department. of Health formed part of the Department of Health and Social Security until July 1988 and the Department's accounting records did not identify consultancy expenditure separately.

  Consultancy expenditure by non-departmental public bodies is as follows:

  1989–90: £125,532

  1991–92: £271,237

  1993–94: £661,256

  1994–95: £664,984

  1995–96: £333,532 (to date)

  Expenditure of some £538,000 is estimated for the whole of the 1995–96 financial year and expenditure of some £510,000 is estimated for 1996–97.

  Details of expenditure by non-departmental public bodies for 1979–80 are not held.

  External consultants provide advice on improving efficiency and effectiveness in the Department. They have contributed to a large variety of projects, including the Department's "Competing for Quality" programme; but it is not possible to assess the savings which are a direct consequence of their activity.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and
  927
  non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11336]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Annual publicity spend information for the financial years 1989–90 to 1996–97 is shown in the table. Functions that are commonly associated with press and public relations for the Department of Health are included in the functions carried out by the Department's information division. Information for the year 1979–80 is not available.

  £ million

  Financial year

  1Total publicity expenditure

  2Information division manpower and running costs

  1979–80

  —

  —

  1989–90

  Department of Health

  17.20 (9.00)

  0.90

  Agencies

  —

  —

  NDPBs

  0.78

  0.01

  1991–92

  Department of Health

  24.50 (8.70)

  1.50

  Agencies

  —

  —

  NDPBs

  0.78

  0.01

  1993–94

  Department of Health

  19.20 (6.10)

  1.90

  Agencies

  —

  —

  NDPBs

  0.16

  0.02

  1994–95

  Department of Health

  18.20 (4.30)

  2.00

  Agencies

  0.20

  —

  NDPBs

  0.19

  0.02

  1995–961

  Department of Health

  8.07 (0.99)

  2.02

  Agencies

  0.15

  —

  NDPBs

  0.18

  0.02

  1995–962

  Department of Health

  18.04 (1.98)

  3—

  Agencies

  —

  —

  NDPBs

  0.24

  0.03

  1996–973

  Department of Health

  —

  —

  Agencies

  —

  —

  NDPBs

  —

  —

  0= Advertising cost.

  1Expenditure to date.

  2Estimate for 1995–96 expenditure.

  3Manpower and running costs estimates for 1995–96 full year and for 1996–97 budget are not yet available.

  Medicinal Drugs (Deaths)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of deaths and serious illnesses that resulted from the use of(a) antibiotics and (b) other medical drugs in each of the last five years. [12166]
  928
  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: Tables 1 to 3 show the number of people who have died as a result of using drugs, medicaments and biological substances in England and Wales in the last five years for which figures are available. Deaths are broken down into adverse effects in correct usage, accidental poisoning, suicides and undetermined deaths.

  Table 4 shows the number of serious adverse reactions in patients taking antibiotics and other drugs reported by health professionals to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. A report does not necessarily mean the reaction was caused by the drug and the levels of reporting vary due to many factors, so comparisons of absolute numbers are not valid.

  Table 1: Deaths in England and Wales due to drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use (ICD1 E930-E949) as underlying or secondary cause

  Antibiotics E930

  Others E931–E949

  1988

  4

  97

  1989

  7

  104

  1990

  2

  106

  1991

  4

  80

  1992

  5

  88

  1International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  Table 2: Deaths in England and Wales due to accidental poisoning by drugs medicaments and biological substances (ICD1 E850–E858)

  Antibiotics E856

  Others E850–E858 (excluding E856)

  1988

  0

  329

  1989

  0

  334

  1990

  0

  402

  1991

  0

  402

  1992

  0

  498

  1International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  Table 3: Deaths in England and Wales due to poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances (ICD1 960–979)

  Suicides and self-inflicted injury2

  Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted2

  1988

  915

  609

  1989

  785

  586

  1990

  816

  544

  1991

  793

  588

  1992

  874

  596

  1International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  2Antibiotics cannot be distinguished separately from other drugs.

  Table 4: Serious adverse effects related to the use of antibiotics and all drugs in the UK and reported to the CSM1

  Antibiotics

  All drugs (including antibiotics)

  1991

  819

  8,816

  1992

  887

  9,014

  1993

  777

  8,397

  1994

  735

  8,562

  1995

  723

  9,094

  1Serious means fatal, life threatening, requiring or prolonging hospitalisation, disabling, cancer, congenital abnormality or overdose.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures he intends to introduce to improve the set-aside scheme. [11280]

  Mr. Baldry
  We will continue to manage the scheme so as to provide maximum flexibility for farmers as well as environmental benefits.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the live transportation of animals; and if he will make a statement. [11281]

  Mrs. Browning
  We continue to receive a wide range of representations. We have been pleased with the level of response to our consultation exercise on implementation of the new EU rules.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the results of his consultations on his proposals for the implementation of EU directive 95/29 on the welfare of animals in transit; and if he will make a statement. [11286]

  Mrs. Browning
  Consultation has not yet finished. As our initial document set out, we shall undertake further consultation on draft proposals for legislation, which we are putting together taking account of the first round of comments we have received.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue a consultation document on the consolidation of legislation relating to the welfare of animals in transit. [11983]

  Mrs. Browning
  Our intention to consolidate existing rules on welfare during transport was set out in the consultation document which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 23 October 1995, on our initial ideas for implementation of directive 95/29/EC on the protection of animals during transport. As confirmed in the consultation document, we shall be consulting further on draft legislative texts, including consolidation of all extant legislation.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals his Department has to improve market mechanisms in the fishing industry. [11282]

  Mr. Baldry
  The main responsibility for improving market mechanisms rests with the industry itself. The Government will play their part by continuing to do all that they can to create an environment in which the industry can prosper.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans next to meet his German counterpart to discuss CAP reform. [11283]
  930
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The German Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry, Mr. Jochen Borchert, has accepted my invitation to visit the UK to discuss the future of the CAP. I hope we will shortly be able to agree specific dates. We do, of course, meet regularly at meetings of the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels or Luxembourg.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how often the common agricultural policy advisory group has met to discuss the future of the CAP; and what is its intended programme of meetings for the coming year. [11290]

  Mr. Hogg
  The report of the CAP review group, which records the conclusions of its 11 independent members, was published on 26 July 1995. The report, which was circulated widely to politicians, academics and non-Governmental public bodies both here and throughout Europe, was instrumental in promoting a genuine debate on the future of the CAP. Copies of the report were placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has made to curb fraud within the CAP across the EU. [11275]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have fully supported Commission initiatives to introduce tough automatic penalties against those proved to have benefited from fraud.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the procedures for ensuring that only calves born to mothers who are free of BSE are exported from the United Kingdom. [11284]

  Mrs. Browning
  Before signing an export health certificate for any consignment the certifying local veterinary inspector must obtain documentary evidence from owners, exporters or auctioneers that none of the calves is the progeny of a BSE-infected dam. In addition, the ear tag numbers of all calves intended for export are checked against the Ministry's computer records. I have no plans to review these procedures.

  Confiscated Animals (Disposal)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the law with regard to the disposal of confiscated animals; and if he will make a statement. [11285]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as amended, the police have powers to remove animals, pending a prosecution for cruelty offences, or to require an animal to be slaughtered where a veterinary surgeon has certified that it would be cruel to keep it alive.

  The Act also empowers courts, on conviction for cruelty offences, to order the disposal of an animal if they are satisfied that it would be cruel to keep it alive, or to deprive the person convicted and to make orders as to the disposal of the animals concerned.

  We have no plans at present to introduce changes to this legislation.

  Fisheries (Access)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with fishermen's organisations about access to the Irish box. [11287]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have had frequent discussions with fishermen's organisations over the last six months on a wide range of issues including access to the Irish box and its enforcement.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss Spanish and Portuguese fishing access. [11293]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have had frequent meetings with representatives of the fishing industry over the last six months at which a wide range of issues have been discussed including Spanish and Portuguese access to western waters.

  Milk
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money the United Kingdom received from the EU to help pay for milk in secondary schools and milk in school catering in 1994–95. [11288]

  Mr. Baldry
  EU expenditure on these discretionary elements of the school milk scheme in the UK in 1994–95 totalled £6.1 million.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage of milk sold in each of the last three years(a) in supermarkets and (b) by doorstep delivery. [11289]

  Mr. Baldry
  The percentage of milk sold in supermarkets and at the doorstep for household consumption in England and Wales is as follows:

  Doorstep delivery

  Supermarkets

  Other shops

  1993

  56.9

  32.3

  10.8

  1994

  51.1

  38.4

  10.5

  1995

  45.2

  43.3

  11.5

  Source:

  Dairy Industry Federation.

  Surplus Male Calves
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the use of separated sperm to reduce the number of surplus male calves; and if he will make a statement. [11291]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry is well aware of the potential of this technique. However, it is not yet ready for commercial application.

  Countryside Conservation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government are working in partnership with farmers to conserve the countryside. [11292]
  932
  Mr. Boswell
  The White Paper "Rural England—A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside" sets out the objectives which guide the Government's approach to the countryside. It contains a number of initiatives aimed at conserving the countryside. "Rural England" is not intended to be a blueprint imposed by Government but is a framework for working in partnership with others who care about rural issues.

  Since publication of the White Paper, I have announced that £5 million will be available for new applications under countryside stewardship in 1997 and a further £5 million for applications in 1998.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the extent of compliance with paragraph 3 of part IV of schedule 3 to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994; and if he will make a statement; [13085]

  (2) what plans he has to monitor the effect of paragraph 3 of part IV of schedule 3 to the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 on the incidence of tail docking of piglets; and if he will make a statement. [13013]

  Mrs. Browning
  Compliance with all aspects of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 is monitored by the state veterinary service. Welfare inspections of pig farms include, where appropriate, an assessment of compliance with paragraph 3 of part IV of schedule 3 to those regulations which relates specifically to the tail docking and tooth clipping of piglets.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the total expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on publicity for each of the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95 and (f) 1995–96 (i) to date and (ii) as estimated for the whole year; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1996–97; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (1) advertising and (2) press and public relations. [11352]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: Expenditure on paid publicity by the Department in the financial year 1979–80 and in each of the subsequent years, broken down into advertising and press and public relations, is as follows:

  Advertising £

  Paid publicity1 £

  Total £

  1989–90

  116,000

  2,373,000

  2,489,000

  1990–91

  126,719

  2,305,281

  2,432,000

  1991–92

  402,903

  3,691,097

  4,094,000

  1992–93

  779,566

  3,437,434

  4,217,000

  1993–94

  749,595

  3,562,405

  4,312,000

  1994–95

  827,115

  3,972,885

  4,800,000

  1995–962

  606,583

  3,819,417

  4,426,000

  1996–972

  455,000

  3,712,000

  4,167,000

  1These figures represent other expenditure associated with paid publicity campaigns, they do not include staff costs.

  2Forecast.

  933
  Paid publicity expenditure prior to 1984–85 was not kept in this form and figures would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Figures for advertising, include poster campaigns and port boards, and are different from previous answers as these forms of advertising had previously been included under the heading of "other publicity and promotional activities".

  Expenditure on publicity by agencies is a matter for their chief executives. I have asked them to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning expenditure on publicity. [11352]
  The Directorate was launched as an executive agency on 1 April 1993. Figures prior to this date are not available. PSD incurred expenditure totalling £14,990 on publicity in 1993/94 in connection with the launch of the agency which can be classified as 'public relations'. No expenditure on publicity was incurred in 1994/95 and no expenditure is anticipated in 1995/96 or 1996/97.
  In addition, PSD spent £481 on newspaper advertising in 1993/94 and £4,440 in 1994/95. There has been no expenditure in 1995/96 to date but the agency expects to spend £2,000 before the end of the year and we estimate expenditure of £5,000 in 1996/97. All of this expenditure is directly attributable to recruitment advertising.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on publicity by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for 1979/80 and each year since 1989/90, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The Directorate was established as a Next Steps Agency on 2 April 1990 and did not maintain its own accounts until 1991/92. Details of expenditure on publicity since that date are as follows:

  Advertising £

  Press and public relations £

  Total £

  1991–92

  34,376

  7,730

  42,106

  1992–93

  22,993

  21,339

  44,332

  1993–94

  19,593

  60,513

  80,106

  1994–95

  10,883

  41,246

  52,129

  1995–96

  to date

  4,855

  43,786

  48,641

  1995–96

  Forecast

  11,000

  58,543

  69,543

  1996–97

  Forecast

  11,300

  60,300

  71,600

  Advertising covers the announcement of the grant and expiry of Marketing Authorisations in the official gazettes and, up to 1993/94, direct recruitment advertising.Press and public relations includes the VMD's Annual Report and Accounts, publicity relating to the safe use of organophosphorus sheep dips, and expenditure on the VMD's quarterly newsletter MAVIS. This newsletter is circulated to the veterinary profession, the veterinary medicinal products industry, representative bodies and opinion formers.
  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  EXPENDITURE ON PUBLICITY
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for details of expenditure on publicity by his Department and its Agencies during certain specified years. The Minister has asked me
  934
  to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. (11352)
  CSL was first launched as an Agency in April 1992 and therefore expenditure for earlier years is included in the Departmental totals. Further, CSL was significantly enlarged in April 1994 following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories and this is reflected in increased expenditure form 1994–95.
  Expenditure in £'000s for each of the years specified is:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Advertising

  0.08

  11.20

  6.03

  4.50

  Press + P.R.

  16.30

  29.93

  20.42

  17.00

  Total

  Publicity

  16.38

  41.13

  26.45

  21.50

  Advertising includes all forms of business advertising and excludes costs of recruitment advertising in newspapers and journals. Press + P.R. includes marketing expenses such as promotions and exhibitions at agricultural shows.
  The final out-turn 1995/96 and the 1996/97 figures are estimated.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary question in which you asked what assessment has been made of the total expenditure on publicity for each of the years (i) 1979–80 (ii) 1989–90 (iii) 1991–92 (iv) 1993/94 (v) 1994/95 (vi) 1995/96 todate and what estimate has been made of such 1996/97; and if the figures could be broken down to indicate expenditure on (a) advertising and (b) press and public relations. [11352]
  ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office in 1992. Any detail relating to expenditure prior to that date would be available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The assessment of expenditure on publicity is as follows:

  Advertising £

  Press public relations £

  1993–94

  49,000

  58,017

  1994–95

  102,000

  79,540

  1995–961

  27,747

  124,389

  1to January 1996

  2to December 1995

  There are no forecasts available for 1995/96 and 1996/97.

  Letter from T W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on expenditure on publicity in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).
  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service.
  VLA expenditure on publicity, which is confined to job advertisements only, is as follows:

  1993/94: £5,000

  1994/95: £5,000

  1995/96: £5,000

  1996/97: £6,000 (estimated)

  Expenditure prior to 1993/94 is included in MAFF figures.
  935
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11354]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The annual telephone costs, including VAT, for the Ministry, but excluding all agencies, was as follows:

  1979–80: This information is no longer available;

  1989–90: £4.924 million

  1991–92: £6.646 million

  1993–94: £3.910 million

  1994–95: £3.636 million

  1995–96: £1.977 million—this figure includes expenditure up to 24 January 1996.

  1996–97: This estimate is not as yet available.

  The Ministry has an internal directory which includes staff within all our major offices.

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  TELEPHONE COSTS AND DIRECTORIES
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about annual telephone costs of his Department and its Agencies during certain specified years and whether internal telephone directories are available to staff. The Minister has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. (11354)
  CSL was first launched as an Agency in April 1992 and therefore expenditure for earlier years is included in the Departmental totals. Further, CSL was significantly enlarged in April 1994 following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories and this is reflected in increased expenditure from 1994/95.
  Telephones costs in £'000s for each of the years specified is:

  1993/94: 157.3

  1994/95: 255.9

  1995/96: 252.2

  1996/97: 175.2

  The final out-turn for 1995/96 and the 1996/97 figures are estimated.
  The Government Telephone Network (GTN) connects over 1,000 government offices nationwide. As a user of the GTN, a GTN Dialling Codes booklet is available to all CSL staff. It enables staff to identify the operator in any government building for enquiry services. Further, MAFF Directories and internal CSL Directories are available to all staff in the Agency.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question seeking information on the estimated expenditure on annual telephone costs in the agency. (11354)
  PSD relocated to its new offices in York during October 1994. Prior to this date, the annual telephone costs for the agency were included in the overall budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister will therefore respond to you separately covering this period. Full year estimates for the agency are available for the following periods:

  1995/96: £37,000

  1996/97: £38,000

  936
  Staff within the agency are both included in, and have access to, MAFF's telephone directory. In addition, PSD maintains its own internal telephone directory and all staff have a copy.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  PQ2: 18 January 1996 (11354)
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about annual telephone costs incurred by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for 1979/80 and each year since 1989/90, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The Directorate was established as a Next Steps Agency on 2 April 1990 and did not maintain its own accounts until 1991/92. Details of annual telephone costs since that date are as follows:

  1991/92: £11,200

  1992/93: £9,477

  1993/94: £11,553

  1994/95: £8,199

  1995/96: £10,140 (forecast)

  1996/97: £11,000 (forecast)

  Internal telephone directories are available to all staff.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on annual telephone costs in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).(11354)
  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service.
  Annual telephone costs, inclusive of VAT, from 1993/94 are as follows:-

  1993/94: £100,200

  1994/95: £94,800

  1995/96: £100,200

  1996/97: ££120,000 (estimated)

  Telephone costs prior to 1993/94 are included in MAFF figures.
  Internal telephone directories are available to all staff.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary question in which you asked what estimate has been made of the annual telephone costs for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97 and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in the Agency. (11354)
  ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office in 1992. Any detail relating to expenditure prior to that date would be available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The telephone costs for ADAS are as follows:

  1993–94: £1,217,675

  1994–95: £1,177,311

  1995–96: £1,268,243 (forecast)

  1996–97: £1,250,000 (forecast)

  Internal telephone directories are available to all staff in ADAS.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by(a) his

  937
  Ministry,(b) his Ministry's agencies and (c) non-ministerial public bodies, for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; [11413]

  (2) what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Ministry, his Ministry's agencies and non-ministerial public bodies on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11416]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The information requested in respect of 1979–80 is no longer available.

  The table details expenditure in respect of (a) all forms of hospitality and entertainment and (b) all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, excluding its agencies, for the years 1989–90,1991–92,1993–94, and 1994–95, together with expenditure for the first nine months of 1995–96.

  Year

  (a) £

  (b) £

  1989–90

  45,817.93

  1,194,517.48

  1991–92

  64,851.87

  1,954,411.83

  1993–94

  79,758.19

  2,103,838.99

  1994–95

  64,092.62

  1,872,568.44

  1995–96

  42,734.07

  1,202,142.30

  Detailed information relating to 1996–97 is not yet available, but it is expected that budgets will be similar to those for the current year.

  The agency chief executives have been asked to provide similar information for each agency.

  Information on the expenditure of self-accounting non-departmental public bodies is given in their annual accounts. Further analysis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on hospitality and entertainment by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for (i) 1979/80, (ii) 1989/90, (iii) 1991/92, (iv) 1993/94, (v) 1994/95, (vi) 1995/96 and (vii) 1996/97, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. (11413)
  The Directorate was established as a Next Steps Agency on 2 April 1990 and did not maintain its own accounts until 1991/92. Since that date, expenditure on hospitality and entertainment, which principally covers working buffet lunches for industry liaison meeting and advisory groups, is as follows:

  1991/92: £1,239

  1993/94: £1,035

  1994/95: £1,817

  1995/96: £1,000 (forecast)

  1996/97: £1,000 (forecast)

  938
  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 196:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your questions regarding costs of empty/under-utilised properties, hospitality and entertainment, overseas expenses, publicity, telephones and external consultants have been passed to me for response with respect to this Executive Agency.(11413)
  As I am sure you are aware, the MHS was established on 1 April 1995 and therefore has incurred no such costs for all but one of these areas prior to this date.
  The Meat Hygiene Service has incurred no costs to date resulting from empty or under-utilised properties and does not expect to do so in 1996/97.
  With regard to hospitality and entertainment, £10,580 was spent in 1994/95, prior to the Agency's launch. A total of £7,000 is expected to be spent in 1995/96 and £9,000 in '96/97.'
  There has been no overseas travel by MHS staff to date and none is anticipated in 1996/97.
  In the 1995/96 financial year, the MHS incurred no costs for publicity, although leaflets about the Agency, costing £2,570, were produced and paid for by MAFF prior to launch. The MHS expects to spend no more than £1,000 on publicity in 1996–97.
  Current forecasts of telephone costs for the 1995/96 financial year are £112,000 and the estimate for 1996/97 is £123,000. Both these figures include mobile phone costs. The Government Telephone Network (GTN) connects over 1000 government offices nationwide. As a user of this system, a GTN dialling codes booklet is available to all MHS office staff. It enables staff to identify the operator in any other government building connected to GTN, for enquiry services.
  The MHS has spent £375,000 on external consultancy so far in 1995/96 and estimates that such costs will total £496,000 for the current financial year. Early projections for 1996/97 anticipate expenditure of no more than £200,000. The savings gained from using consultants are difficult to estimate. Many of these services provided have been on financial and computer systems where benefits will be achieved in long term savings which cannot accurately be quantified.
  In the first year of operation it has been necessary to use consultants to deal with start-up issues; providing resources to cope with short-term workload peaks whilst avoiding the need to incur long-term costs of employing permanent staff. Consultants have also provided necessary expertise in certain specialised areas either not contained within the MHS, to an insufficient degree, or that has only been required for limited periods. As you can see from the estimates for the future, the use of consultants is expected to reduce considerably.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on expenditure on hospitality and entertainment in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA).
  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service.
  Figures for expenditure on hospitality are as follows:

  1993/94: £16,720

  1994/95: £12,076

  1995/96: £16,400 (estimated)

  Figures prior to 1993/94 are included in MAFF figures. We expect expenditure in 1996/97 to be of the same order as that of 1995/96.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning expenditure on hospitality and entertainment. [11413]

  939
  The Directorate was launched as an executive agency on 1 April 1993. Figures prior to that date are not available.
  The following amounts have been spent on hospitality or are projected to be spent in the other years identified in the Question:

  1993/94: Actual expenditure—£380

  1994/95: Actual expenditure—£422

  1995/96: Projected expenditure—£1,400

  1996/97: Projected expenditure—£1,400

  There has been no expenditure by the Directorate on entertainment.

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  EXPENDITURE ON HOSPITALITY AND ENTERTAINMENT
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment by his Department and its Agencies during certain specified years. The Minister has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.(11413)
  CSL was first launched as an Agency in April 1992 and therefore expenditure for earlier years is included in the Departmental totals. Further, CSL was significantly enlarged in April 1994 following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories and this is reflected in increased expenditure from 1994/95.
  Expenditure in £'000s for each of the years specified is:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Entertainment

  0.09

  2.07

  2.45

  2.40

  Hospitality

  4.62

  10.43

  21.19

  10.00

  Total

  4.71

  12.50

  23.64

  12.40

  Expenditure on hospitality in 1995/96 includes the costs of the Visiting Group to CSL's Agriculture and Environment Directorate. The purpose of the Visiting Group was to assess the quality and management of the science delivered by the Directorate.The final out-turn for 1995/96 and the 1996/97 figures are estimated.
  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary question in which you asked for an estimate of expenditure on all forms of hospitality and entertainment for (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11413]
  ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office in 1992. Any detail relating to expenditure prior to that date would be available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The estimated costs by ADAS on hospitality and entertainment are as follows:
  Estimated Cost

  1993–94: £14,197

  1994–95: £20,086

  1995–96: £10,630

  There are no estimates available for 1996–97.

  Letter from T. W. A Little to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on expenditure on overseas travel, accommodation and associated expenses in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. [11416]
  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service.
  940
  Total expenditure on overseas travel is as follows:-

  1993–94: £61,700

  1994–95: 66,200

  1995–96: £63,900

  1996–97: £75,000 (estimated)

  Figures prior to 1996–97 are included in MAFF figures. The estimate for 1996–97 includes expenditure by the former Veterinary Investigation Service.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses, by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90,(c) 1991/-2, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  The Directorate was established as a Next Steps Agency on 2 April 1990 and did not maintain its own accounts until 1991–92. Details of this since that date are as follows:

  1991–92: £95,848

  1993–94: £118,009

  1994–95: £126,864

  1995–96: £85,000 (forecast)

  1996–97: £87,500 (forecast)

  The main element of overseas travel was in respect of immunological inspections of manufacturing premises overseas, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA and Europe. VMD staff also attend meetings of E.U. working groups in Brussels. In both cases, all or part of the travel costs are reimbursed.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary question in which you asked what is the estimated expenditure on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses for: (i) 1979–80 (ii) 1989–90 (iii) 1991–92 (iv) 1993–94 (v) 1994–95 (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97. [11416]
  ADAS was formed as an Executive Agency of MAFF and the Welsh Office in 1992. Any detail relating to expenditure prior to that date would be available from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The estimated expenditure on overseas travel for ADAS is as follows:

  1993–94: £198,407

  1994–95: £249,388

  1995–96: £396,947 (forecast)

  1996–97: £400,000 (forecast)

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  OVERSEAS TRAVEL EXPENDITURE
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for details of expenditure on all forms of overseas travel, overseas accommodation and associated expenses by his Department and its Agencies during certain specified years. The Minister has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. (11416)
  CSL was first launched as an Agency in April 1992 and therefore expenditure for earlier years is included in the Departmental totals. Further, CSL was significantly enlarged in April 1994 following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories and this is reflected in increased expenditure from 1994–95.

  941
  Expenditure in £'000s for each of the years specified is:

  1993–94: 57.4

  1994–95: 155.8

  1995–96: 175.2

  1996–97: 145.0

  The final out-turn for 1995–96 and the 1996–97 figures are estimated.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning expenditure on overseas travel, overseas accommodation and other associated expenses. (11416)
  The Directorate was launched as an executive agency on 1 April 1993. Figures prior to that date are not available.
  The following amounts of expenditure have been recorded, or are estimated for the years concerned.

  1993–94: Actual expenditure—£97,668

  1994–95: Actual expenditure—£74,980

  1995–96: Estimated expenditure—£89,000

  1996–97: Estimated expenditure—£89,000

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of ministerial expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (f) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11414]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: The departmental report 1995, Cm 2803, at annexe 5 gives detailed information in respect of departmental expenditure on administration from 1989–90, as do the appropriation accounts for years up to and including 1994–95, as well as forecasts for 1995–96 onwards.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for incapacity benefit have been made since April in each of the benefit district offices that covers Doncaster and Mexborough; what percentages of these have been for(a) males and (b) females; and what percentages were unsuccessful; [8453]

  (2) how many claims there have been for the new incapacity benefit in each of the benefit district offices that cover Doncaster and Mexborough; and how many of these were claimants with mental health problems. [8454]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 31 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about how many claims for incapacity benefit (IB) have been made since April in each of the benefit district offices that covers Doncaster and Mexborough; what percentage of these have been for (a) males and (b) females; and what percentage were unsuccessful; and how many of these were claimants with mental health problems.
  942
  The number of IB claims since April 1995 to November 1995 for Doncaster District is 5171. This District comprises of Doncaster East and Doncaster West Offices. Figures for the Mexborough Branch office, which forms part of the Rother and Dearne District are available for the same period. The number of IB claims is 1607.
  The percentage of claims for male and female and those that were unsuccessful could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Details about a persons incapacity, for example mental health problems, could also only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average cost of each incapacity benefit appeal(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the Greater Manchester area. [12236]

  Mr. Burt
  The average cost of an incapacity benefit appeal is estimated to be approximately £340. It is not possible to provide estimates of the average cost in individual areas.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 625, what considerations led the chief executive of the Child Support Agency to conclude that including fully assessed cases only in respect of child maintenance assessments gives a more accurate picture. [10189]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 31 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  My letter to you of 12 December 1995 updated information I had provided on 18 May 1995.
  The table providing information on the benefit status of parents with care and absent parents was amended to provide information at the full maintenance assessment stage. Previously the benefit status was determined at the point when maintenance application and enquiry forms were returned. It is more accurate to record benefit status at the end of the assessment process as there may be considerations that affect the benefit status between the time of receipt of the relevant maintenance form and completion of a full maintenance assessment.
  All the other tables shown in the answer were updated using the same definitions as previously used (which was fully assessed cases for all tables, apart from those relating to interim maintenance assessments).
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to transfer Child Support Agency operations to local offices; and how this transfer will affect the operations of the agency's main centres. [11183]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 31 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the transfer of work from the Child Support Agency's six centres to local Field offices.

  943
  As the Agency's Business Plan for 1995/96 explains, from April 1995 nearly all our field staff, who are based in local Social Security offices, have had better access to the Child Support Computer System (CSCS). They are able to register cases on the System and to deal with client enquiries more effectively. As much of our paper work is automated this has reduced clerical administration and the amount of forms and work sent between the centres and field offices.
  Plans are in hand for our staff in the field to play an even larger role during 1996/97 as they will also complete some maintenance assessments locally using CSCS. A pilot exercise will take place in six field offices within Dudley CSAC Business Unit involving the take-on of new applications for child support maintenance. Training for staff is due to be delivered next month, with the pilot exercise running from March to May. The exercise will be subject to a full and robust evaluation prior to any decision being made on the timing for national rollout. This work will be carefully integrated with the work on implementing the Departures system and is likely to continue over a two year period.
  The movement of the bulk of maintenance assessment work to the field will allow the centres to concentrate on maintaining an ever increasing caseload and the efficient and effective collection of child maintenance.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many two-parent families are in receipt of(a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) disability working allowance; and for each benefit what is the number of two-parent families estimated to included a qualifying child for the purposes of the Child Support Act 1991; [12800]

  (2) how many lone parent families are in receipt of (a) income support, (b) family credit and (c) disability working allowance; and for each benefit what is the number of lone parent families estimated to include a qualifying child for the purposes of the Child Support Act 1991. [12801]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The latest available information as at May 1994 is as follows:

  Two-parent families

  Lone parent families

  Income support

  537,000

  1,089,000

  Family credit

  315,000

  236,000

  Disability working allowance

  1,000

  —

  There is no information available on the number of two-parent families that include a qualifying child for the purposes of the Child Support Act 1991.

  We estimate that 1,068,000 lone parents receiving income support and nearly all of the lone parents in receipt of family credit have a qualifying child for the purposes of the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many of the cases in which a child support officer refused a parent with care exemption on the grounds of harm or undue distress he or she decided not to issue a reduced benefit direction because there was a risk to the welfare of the child. [12781]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when it is planned to republish the CSA's charter; and what plans there are to extend the commitments given to clients. [12790]
  944
  Mr. Mitchell
  The Child Support Agency will publish its new charter in the next financial year. The charter will contain more information than the first version, cover a wider range of the agency's business, and concentrate on the agency's principle functions.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many child support appeal tribunals hearings have been held to date; what proportion of appeals have been successful; how often both the person with care and the absent parent attend; and how often the parties are represented; [12794]

  (2) what proportion of child support appeals has been lodged with the independent tribunal service within the required 28 days; and, of those lodged after this time limit, what proportion are accepted. [12793]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  1994

  1995

  Appeals lodged within 28 days

  —

  71 per cent.

  Appeals lodged over 28 days Admitted

  —

  89 per cent.

  Hearings held

  6,129

  6,859

  Success rates

  —

  64 per cent.

  Attendance by absent parent and person with care

  —

  21 per cent.

  Attendance by representative

  —

  16 per cent.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many(a) lone parent families and (b) two-parent families are denied access to the CSA by section 4(10)(a) of the Child Support Act 1991. [12797]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on research his Department(a) is conducting, and (b) has commissioned, on the subject of the Child Support Agency and child maintenance. [12779]

  Mr. Mitchell
  This Department does not generally carry out its own research. However, we have commissioned the following research from outside contractors, which is either in progress or under negotiation: a review of the operation of the requirement to co-operate provision; measuring self-employed income for the purposes of the Child Support Agency; a number of surveys on how absent parents view the system and the impact on their lives; and an extension of work on lone parents, benefits and maintenance by the Policy Studies Institute.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many potential section 4 applicants come to private arrangements for child maintenance and do not seek the CSA's services. [12798]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the Child Support Agency's powers to obtain information from the Inland Revenue. [12785]
  945
  Mr. Mitchell
  The Child Support Agency already has powers which allow it to obtain information from the Inland Revenue. These powers relate solely to the tracing of both the current address, or the current employer, of the absent parent. We have no current plans to extend these powers further.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many departure applications are likely to be made to the CSA over each of the next three financial years and how many departure directions issued; what further grounds for departure will be added to those included in the Child Support Act 1991; and how long it is estimated that it will take for a departure officer to make a decision on a departure application. [12789]

  Mr. Mitchell
  There is insufficient data available at present to enable accurate estimates to be made of the likely number of departure applications or the proportion that are likely to be successful. However, estimates of the financial effect have been based on the broad assumption that no more than 10 per cent. of the Child Support Agency's caseload will qualify for a departure direction. One of the main reasons for running the pilot exercise from April this year is to provide the detailed information necessary to make accurate estimates.

  Regulations for the conduct of the pilot exercise will be laid before Parliament in March. There are no plans for these regulations to add further grounds for a departure direction beyond those exemplified in the Act. However, the ground which deals with cases of inconsistent life style has been enhanced. It will now, for example, cover instances where parents divert income over which they have control to a third party in order to avoid their true liability.

  The pilot exercise will also enable the Child Support Agency to produce estimates of the time it will take to process applications.

  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will be making an announcement about the changes to compensation available to clients of the Child Support Agency who have suffered loss and distress; how many applications have been made to the Child Support Agency for compensation to date and how many have been successful; and what is the total that has been paid out in compensation. [12780]

  Mr. Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 7 November 1995,Official Report, columns 830–31.

  There have been 1,182 applications for compensation made to the agency from launch in April 1993 to the 30 November 1995; the number of successful claims is 112; the total that has been paid out in compensation is £56,752.50.

  Pensions (Automated Credit Transfer)
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners opted to receive their state pension by automated credit transfer in 1995. [11044]

  Mr. Heald
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  946
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Sir Andrew Bowden, dated 31 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what proportion of pensioners opted to receive their state pension by automated credit transfer (ACT) in 1995.
  As of 9 October 1995, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of £3,040,729 pensioners were having their Retirement Pension paid by ACT. This represents 30.3 per cent of the total caseload.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claimed disablement benefit because of vibration white finger in the period 1990 to 1995; and how many of those claims were approved between 1990 and 1995. [11594]

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not readily available in the formate requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Initial assessments of disability where PD All(vibration white finger) diagnosed and those resulting in an award of industrial injuries disablement benefit

  Total PD All assessments

  PD A11 assessments of 14 per cent. or more

  1990–91

  6,850

  36

  1991–92

  5,223

  21

  1992–93

  2,476

  40

  1993–94

  1,877

  65

  1994–95

  1,883

  146

  Source:

  100 per cent. count of cases.

  Positive about Disabled People Symbol
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for his Department and each of the agencies for which he is responsible if it uses the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol for(a) external recruitment and (b) internal recruitment and promotion. [11924]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department of Social Security and its agencies, the Benefits Agency, the Contributions Agency, Child Support Agency, War Pensions Agency and the Information Technology Services Agency, adopted the Employment Service's positive about disabled people symbol in May 1995, to demonstrate their commitment to disabled staff. In light of this, all disabled staff who apply to be treated under the symbol, and who satisfy the minimum criteria for a job, will be offered an interview. This applies to direct recruitment, advertised internal vacancies, promotion boards, selection for management development programmes and the selection of in-service candidates for the fast-stream selection board.

  The Resettlement Agency is closing in April 1996 and has therefore not adopted the symbol.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make sure that the new benefits payment card is user-friendly to older people and people with disabilities. [11751]

  Mr. Heald
  We have had extensive consultations with a wide range of customer representative organisations, including those with a special interest in the needs of the elderly and of people with disabilities. They have provided valuable input into the design requirements of the benefit payment card.

  The final card design has not yet been chosen, being subject to the evaluation of service providers' proposals, but we are looking to ensure that the new system will be simple and straightforward for all our customers to use, as well as secure.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that information currently contained in the pension book will be preserved and improved with the proposed new benefit payment card system with particular reference to(a) a permanent record of pension payments received, (b) details of how the pension is made up, (c) clear information on the amount due and the date available, (d) information on change of circumstances and (e) details of claiming income support. [11750]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 31 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what plans he has to ensure that information currently contained in the pension book will be preserved and improved with the proposed new benefit payment card system with particular reference to (a) a permanent record of pension payments received, (b) details of how the pension is made up, (c) clear information on the amount due and the date available, (d) information on change of circumstances and (e) details of claiming Income Support (IS).
  The Benefits Agency is committed to continuing to provide full information and advice about benefits to all our customers.
  Each time a customer receives a payment of benefit at a post office a receipt will be issued. This receipt will include details of the type(s) of benefit paid, the amount(s) payable, the due date and the date of payment and the date of the last payment(s) made. Customers will be encouraged to retain these receipts as a record of the pension they have received, although full statements of the account will be available on request from the DSS office responsible for authorising the payment.
  New pensioners will continue to receive a notice of entitlement before their Retirement Pension is due, as they do now, which will include details of how their benefit is made up. Existing pensioners will receive a notification before their first card is issued. When a customer notifies a change in circumstances which affects the amount of benefit payable, a written notification will be issued. These arrangements reflect those which are already in place for pensioners who have chosen to be paid by Automated Credit Transfer.
  It is intended that details of the date the next pension payment is due will be included on the last benefit receipt issued.
  There will be information about the need to report changes of circumstances printed on the reverse of the card.
  Final decisions have not yet been made about how information on other benefits such as IS will be made available to individual customers. Current communication facilities will continue to be used
  948
  for example, leaflets, advertisements etc. Firmer proposals will be available once the final selection of the card payment system supplier is made.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency Offices
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average daily attendance at the Benefits Agency offices at(a) Highgate and (b) Finsbury Park for (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) the current year to date; what were the staffing levels for (i) to (iv); and if he will make a statement. [12270]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 31 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what was the average daily attendance at the Benefits Agency offices at (a) Highgate and (b) Finsbury Park for (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) the current year to date; what were the staffing levels for (i) to (iv); and if he will make a statement.
  The information requested is given for twelve month periods, January to December and is shown at Annex A.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A: Average daily attendance at Highgate and Finsbury Park branch offices

  Branch office

  1993

  1994

  1995

  11996

  Highgate

  258

  210

  271

  270

  Finsbury Park

  253

  290

  261

  275

  Average daily staffing levels at Highgate and Finsbury Park branch offices

  Branch Office

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Highgate

  30

  34

  30

  30

  Finsbury Park

  30

  32

  30

  30

  1Up to and including 26 January 1996. Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there have been in the cash limits or running costs limits of his Department. [13179]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class XIII, vote 3—housing benefit administration and council tax benefit administration, payments into the social fund in respect of discretionary expenditure and other grants—will be increased by £1,550,000 from £417,705,000 to £419,255,000. The cash limit for class XIII, vote 4—administration and miscellaneous services—will be increased by £19,355,000 from £2,676,396,000 to £2,695,751,000.

  The revision for vote 3 takes account of an increase in the grant in aid to Independent Living, £1,550,000, to enable it to continue to help severely disabled persons to live independently, partly offset by a reduction of £1,125,000 on Department of Health and Social Services

  949
  (Northern Ireland) vote 5. The balance of £425,000 will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Vote 4 revisions take account of increased requirements resulting from policy changes and work load increases—£93,378,000 of which £62,967,000 is running costs a reduction of £212,000 (running costs) offset by a corresponding increase in Department of Health administration and miscellaneous health services and personal social services England, class XII, vote 2, a reduction of £10,000 (running costs) offset by a corresponding increase on Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) vote 3, an increase of £50,000 (running costs) offset by a corresponding reduction on schools, research and miscellaneous services class X, vote 1 and an increase of £1,000,000 (running costs) offset by a corresponding reduction on Department of Employment: Employment Service, class v, vote 2, an increase of £105,000 in running cost cover for services
  950
  provided to the Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) on repayment and an increase of £74,851,000 in appropriations in aid.

  Further running costs changes arise from a reduction of £6,239,000 as a result of a re-allocation to capital and other current expenditure and an increase of £5,633,000 in value added tax refunds.

  As a result of these changes the running costs limit of the Department of Social Security will be increased by £52,028,000 from £3,035,513,000 to £3,087,541,000.

  The additional vote 4 requirements will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Pensions (Uprating)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to bring the uprating of pensions forward to 1 April in each year. [13077]

  Mr. Heald
  None.

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

EU Foreign Missions
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What functions are performed by the 126 foreign missions set up by the EU, and whether they support the establishment of these missions.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the European Commission maintains missions overseas to carry out the functions ascribed to it under the European Community treaties. These include the distribution of aid under community programmes, monitoring and lobbying against barriers to trade, offering economic and technical assistance and disseminating information. Her Majesty's Government recognise the need for the Commission to maintain missions overseas, but we continually encourage the Commission to make them more efficient.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that mildly encouraging Answer. Is he aware that there are 126 such missions around the world, usually in sunlit spots, and that in some cases the cost of their maintenance is more than the amount of aid that they distribute? Is it not possible for the aid to be distributed through the present embassies, delegations or consulates which are maintained in these countries rather than establishing a whole new semi-diplomatic bureaucracy?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I am aware of the number of missions. My noble friend may be encouraged to hear that the budget for the external delegations for 1996 is £152 million, which is down from £160 million last year. There is some encouragement that the budget is reducing. The member states have an important role both through local missions and management committees in Brussels, but not all member states have wide networks of overseas missions, which are necessary to ensure the proper administration of aid.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the so-called offices or missions were operating for many years until 1993 without any legal backing whatever? Legislation had to be introduced by the Council in order to give retrospective approval to these particular establishments. Is he further aware that they are costing some £120 million a year and that in certain sections in Brussels they are widely regarded as being embryo embassies waiting for the Commission to become the European Government?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, knows, I am aware that my
1550
noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey wrote to him on 1st May 1995 with regard to the network of offices and how they were created. As regards the noble Lord's suggestion that these offices are waiting to become embassies, I must inform him that Commission delegations do not have formal diplomatic status but host states have been prepared to grant them privileges and immunities similar to those granted to diplomatic missions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what proportion of the cost of these missions falls on British taxpayers?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, no, not directly, because it comes out of the Commission budget.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the European Union represents the interests of all member states, including those of the United Kingdom, in important matters particularly in world trade? Is it not in the interests of us all that there should be effective European Union representation in the external world?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. One thing that we are trying to do is to make it as effective as possible at the least possible cost.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a duplication of public expenditure when, on average, each mission costs £1¼ million a year, of which British taxpayers pay a considerable amount? Surely it is a complete and utter waste of public money to duplicate expenditure in order that the European Union is represented in countries which already have embassies and high commissioners.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend. The missions are involved with, for example, managing multilateral European aid, not just British aid. As regards trade barriers, the Commission is dealing with their removal in respect of the European Union and not just Britain. Therefore, there must be representatives of the European Union.
Lord Richard: My Lords, returning to the question put with his customary moderation by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, would the Minister agree that, if ever there were a case of duplication, it would occur if each of the embassies or High Commissions of member states in a given country had to perform the task individually which is undertaken at present by the European Union representative?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the missions perform a very useful two-way function? If we take, for example, the mission in Japan, it will be seen that the inward

1551
investment to the European Community—much of which finds its way to this country—is much helped by the European Union's mission office.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend. It is most important to realise the effect on trade and on the distribution of multilateral aid which such missions can have.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, would it be possible in some smaller countries to have a European Union interest section in the embassy of the country which holds the presidency at any one time, instead of having separate premises and accommodation costs?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that that would be most difficult to do. Indeed, it would be highly expensive to have all those people travelling to and fro every six months, without knowing the local area. I should also point out that, while we make representations, it is a matter for the European Commission and not the British Government.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are at least as many missions from countries outside the European Community which are maintained in Brussels? That clearly shows that this is not a one-way extravagance; and, indeed that it is something valued by those with whom the Community has, above all, trade relations.
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords; I repeat, again, that we do believe that there is great value in such missions so far as concerns trade, the negotiation of trade agreements and, most importantly, the distribution of multilateral aid.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that not only has the European Court of Auditors and Members of both Houses of Parliament been criticising the proliferation of such embassies, but so also have MEPs, including Conservative MEPs in particular? They have been saying that spending on such missions has grown quite out of control.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have been endeavouring to point out that what we have been trying to do is to make the missions more efficient and reduce the costs wherever possible. We are doing what we can; but it is a matter for the MEPs, the European Parliament and the European Commission.

British Council: ODA Grant
3.15 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What development criteria have led to the decision to impose a 28 per cent. reduction in real terms in grant-in-aid from the Overseas Development Administration to the British Council over the next three years.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the planned levels of the British Council's grant-in-aid from the ODA over the
1552
next three financial years take account of Britain's increasing multilateral obligations and other priorities for available bilateral funds.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that he himself assured us of the Government's determination to protect the bilateral programme? Does he further agree that the British Council, especially in the sphere of education which is so vital to development, is second to none in the quality of its work? Why then must there be such a vicious cut in aid when, by its work in development, the British Council is building the friendship across the world which we so desperately need for our own future economic strength?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the British Council does an excellent job for Britain overseas, both in development and in cultural diplomacy. It remains an integral part of our overall aid effort. The council has built up a large body of expertise and experience over the past 60 years. However, it is not possible to exempt the council from budgetary pressures on the aid programme and the current drive to cut costs and sharpen priorities. I should be interested to know where the noble Lord would find the funds to meet the needs to which he referred.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the cost of making cuts through redundancies and relocation of personnel will almost equal the actual savings made by way of the cuts? Therefore, where is the saving to the public purse in making such cuts?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is not actually true. The matter is under consideration at present. Proposals are being made but, until they are available and have been discussed, we cannot be definitive on the issue.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the great contributions of the ODA has been to help to control the HIV/AIDS virus? By cutting its budget, we risk condemning many more millions of people to a horrible death and also overburdening the health services of poor countries which can ill afford to support the disease.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we are attempting not to reduce such aid, especially in sub-Saharan Africa where HIV is most prevalent. It is for the British Council, which is independent, to allocate its resources as best it can to enable it to deal with the problems that exist.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest as I am a member of the British Council. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will maintain their support for the ODA technical co-operation training programme? The programme has been managed successfully by the British Council since 1960. It brings significant numbers of trainees from developing countries to study in Britain where they benefit from the excellence of our institutions of learning.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the contract for the programme is due for renewal in March 1997.

1553
Discussions are already taking place. It would he premature to make any announcement until the discussions have progressed further.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the British Council, together with the BBC World Service, is one of the two main ways of extending British influence throughout the world, sometimes in a fairly intangible manner but one which has a real synergy with diplomatic attempts of a more political nature? Some of us are doubtful about the cut. We hope that the matter will be looked at much more closely next year.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I understand exactly the point my noble friend makes. We would all like there not to be any cuts of any sort anywhere.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I understand the Minister's response that the budget is tight. But the track record and performance of the British Council and of the BBC World Service are quite outstanding. That is borne out by many comments of foreign observers. Might it be feasible to reconsider whether the whole aid budget should be cut so sharply, given the excellence of British aid delivery?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments about the British Council and the BBC World Service. I agree totally that those bodies have performed magnificently. However, in a time of tight budgetary restraint cuts have to be made. I certainly give no assurance that the Budget Statement of last November can be re-examined to consider increasing the amounts.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is important to suggest from where alternative resources will come for expanding programmes. Does the noble Lord accept that we arc not arguing for an expansion? We are arguing for a preservation of the programme. This vicious cut is five times as large proportionately as the cuts in the overseas development programme as a whole. When the council is doing such excellent work in the front line of education, it is exasperating to find Ministers congratulating what it is doing and then, behind the council's back, undermining its capability of undertaking the tasks they applaud.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is not a question of undermining the council. The council now receives over 50 per cent. of its income from its important outside work including its contracts for teaching English in different countries. It does a superb job in that field and will be increasing its efforts. We are trying terribly hard not to cut support—this is associated with the area we are discussing and comes under the same budget—to the voluntary agencies and non-governmental organisations. We are maintaining our support to those bodies and cuts have therefore to be made elsewhere.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, cannot some funds come from the Department of Trade and Industry given that the British Council contributes to the export trade figures of this country?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that would he a matter of trying to get money out of the Treasury not the Department of Trade and Industry. The noble Viscount will be aware that that is not an easy thing to do.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this is a question which comes up with depressing regularity and has done for the past 40 years? Should it not be a time when we can at last give the cultural arm of this country—the British Council—some sense of commitment and stability?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we are fully committed to the British Council. However, as I said, it is just a question of the budget.

MRSA Infection: Control
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they are doing to prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and other drug-resistant strains of infections within hospitals and the community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Department of Health issued guidance to the National Health Service in September 1994 on the control of MRSA and in March 1995 on the general control of infections in hospitals. Although MRSA is an uncommon cause of infection in the community we shall shortly be issuing further guidance to health authorities and social services departments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she tell the House whether she feels there are enough side wards in hospitals to cope with patients with resistant infections? Does she agree with me that the world has become small in terms of travel? Is she aware that during the summer I met an Australian girl who had travelled to Africa and then had come to London and who became ill and was taken to St. Mary's Paddington where, after many hours in the casualty department, she was admitted to a bathroom which happened to be the only place available?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when MRSA is prevalent in a hospital it is up to the local management to deal with it. Sometimes that means having to close an entire ward in order to do so. Screening is available for travellers entering the UK. If found to be suffering from infectious diseases clearly they receive appropriate treatment and immunisation if that is necessary. With regard to beds in London and in other parts of the country, we are aware that there has been pressure through the winter on accident and emergency departments. My honourable friend the Minister for Health is taking action to address that problem.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the action that is being taken on the staffing in A&E

1555
departments, although welcome, does not help the situation regarding beds? Is she further aware that the high prevalence of MRSA in acute hospitals at the moment is not only a risk to individual patients but also to the capacity of those hospitals to deal with their patient workload? Further, is the Minister aware that the intense pressure on bed occupancy at the moment is not only a contributing factor to the prevalence of MRSA, but also the infection exacerbates the problem by lengthening stays and by making it difficult to discharge patients? Is there not mounting evidence that the squeeze on beds has simply gone too far?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I said, it is up to local trusts to deal with a situation where there is infection in a hospital. I appreciate that there has been pressure on beds, especially during the winter, and we have seen an unexplained rise in accident and emergency admissions. In addition, coupled with the incidence of influenza among staff, there has been a problem in staffing some of the wards. We are taking action on that. The noble Baroness as the chairman of a trust will be well aware of the action that is being taken.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there are sufficient trained nurses in control of these infections? Could she also comment on the report on Radio 4—I think it was early Tuesday morning—that the Heriot Watt University hopes it has found at least a treatment, perhaps a cure, for some of these infections and that it is contained in seaweed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the staffing of wards is a matter for the local management. The new treatment that is being developed at the Heriot Watt University, is, of course, very interesting, but at this moment it is a little too soon to say whether it will be effective. However, we are cautiously optimistic.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the shortage of beds in the NHS is largely as a result of people contracting diseases caused by the side effects of existing drugs which are provided by the pharmaceutical companies? Would there not be great benefits to be gained, in terms of the bed situation, if we could arrange for drug companies to produce less dangerous drugs, and perhaps if the health service paid attention to complementary medicine?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's great interest in complementary medicine. The pharmaceutical industry of this country is a great success. Indeed, it produces a positive trade balance of £1.7 billion a year and I believe that Glaxo is one of the most successful pharmaceutical companies in the world. As regards hospital infections, we have not seen an increase since the survey was done in 1980 and despite the increasing numbers of patients who are being treated the levels are still about the same.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is it not disturbing that senior microbiologists with whom we have discussed the question say that one of their problems with MRSA is that new managers in the health
1556
service require them to measure their performance in output units? That seems a rather difficult background against which to do the kind of research which is necessary to try to combat the problem.
In addition, is the noble Baroness aware of the reported comment of a doctor at St. Thomas' hospital that the understanding of the nature and extent of the infection was being minimised because hospitals were in competition with each other? Is that not another example of the NHS managers perhaps putting market values above their clinical responsibilities?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may respond first to the noble Baroness's point about research. We are doing a lot of research on MRSA. There are two research projects specifically on this particular bacterium, totalling £46,000 a year. A further £2 million a year is being spent on other studies on hospital infection control generally. The noble Baroness must see the management of the health service in the light of the fact that never before have we treated more patients and never before have we had shorter waiting times. Clearly managers are concerned, because if there are infections the performance of their trust will be reduced. Therefore, managers will be as anxious as anybody else to ensure that infections are kept to a minimum.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year at Addenbrooke's hospital 183 operations were cancelled and wards were closed for 263 days due to the incidence of MRSA? Since then the position has deteriorated somewhat. Therefore, does she not agree that the microbiology services in hospitals become of increasing importance? Can we have an assurance that those services will not be cut under any circumstances, despite the problems of finance in the health service?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Baroness's question. With regard to the second part, that is a matter that has to be left to local determination.

Privatised Utilities: Consumer Representation
3.32 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the recommendations contained in the National Consumer Council's report of January 1996 on strengthening consumer representation in the privatised utilities.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government will of course consider the National Consumer Council's very recent report. In general, we are content with the existing consumer representation arrangements in the utilities, even though these do not conform to any one particular model.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there is growing concern among the public

1557
about the operation of the privatised utilities and that one way of dealing with that would be to strengthen consumer representation within those industries? Does he agree that the Gas Consumers Council, which is an independent body, has operated very successfully? In those circumstances, and because of growing public anxiety, does he not think that the Government ought to give serious consideration to the recommendation in the National Consumer Council's report that similar independent bodies representing the interests of consumers should be set up in the electricity, water and telecommunications industries rather than consumer interests being contained within the regulatory organisations?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not accept the first question that the noble Lord directed at me. I should think that those electricity consumers who will receive a £50 rebate will be far from disconcerted by that.
On the subject of representation within the utilities, it is clear from the report prepared by the National Consumer Council that the different models which exist have different virtues and strengths. I am not wholly persuaded that to adopt the model of the Gas Consumers Council is necessarily appropriate in every circumstance, although I accept that it has performed well. For example, I doubt whether those who live in some parts of the country who have anxieties about the water industry in their area would believe that a national council would necessarily be the best way to deal with their misgivings.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the general tone of the National Consumer Council's report could well lead to better understanding and to increased trade? Are those two issues not important for the industries involved?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not sure how the recommendations contained in the report would lead to an increase in trade. However, there are a number of recommendations in the report with which we agree in general terms. For example, one of the recommendations is that there should be greater openness in the way in which the councils carry out their affairs. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that that is a desirable objective.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, was not one of the purposes of privatisation to prevent Ministers and governments interfering in the running of the industries as they used to interfere in the nationalised industries? Is it not at least possible that a high proportion of the directors and shareholders of the utilities are consumers?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords, they are indeed. I certainly wish to resist the notion that, because we have a system of regulators for the various utilities, it is desirable for Ministers to interfere. The arm's length approach which has been adopted has, in the main, been successful. We would not wish to revert to a situation where Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry or other departments sought to assume a more significant role.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not a fact that Ministers do interfere? That concern is expressed by the National Consumer Council and other consumer bodies in relation to the draconian cuts that were made in their resources between 1993 and 1995. Is it pure coincidence that those cuts coincided with a period when strong criticisms were made by those consumer bodies on behalf of those they represent about, for example, VAT on fuel bills, threats to the Post Office and Cedric Brown's unwarranted pay rise? Does the Minister agree that those cuts can and do impact on the ability of the consumer councils to do their job as independent bodies; namely, to represent those who are least able to represent themselves?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am astonished to hear the noble Lord suggest that VAT matters might appropriately be a subject for decision by consumer councils. That is clearly a matter for central government. The individual consumer bodies which are funded by the Department of Trade and Industry have received their 1996–97 settlements at the baseline. The funding of a number of other councils—as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, and he would not wish anyone to be misled—is a matter for the regulators concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, urged, it is not for us to interfere with the work of the regulators.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for grants and other assistance for housing purposes and about action in relation to unfit housing; to amend the law relating to construction contracts and architects; to provide grants and other assistance for regeneration and development, and in connection with clearance areas; to amend the provisions relating to home energy efficiency schemes; to make provision in connection with the dissolution of urban development corporations, housing action trusts and the Commission for New Towns; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Application of this Part]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 20 and insert ("to—

(a) an indictable offence, or

(b) a summary offence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 21, 41, 43 and 95. The amendments are complicated, not because the idea behind them is complicated but because the structure of the Bill is complicated. The draftsman has chosen to take Part I of the Bill and divide it between those cases which are considered in magistrates' courts and those which are considered in the Crown Courts. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it means that when we try to make provision for cases which are summary offences, those which are triable—I am perfectly happy to continue when the House is prepared to be a little more silent. I was referring to those cases which can be treated either as summary offences or taken in the Crown Court and those which are indictable offences. Therefore everything that we say applying to all four aspects has to be provided in all parts of the Bill. There are separate provisions for those aged under 18 and those aged 18 and over.
The purpose behind the amendments is simple. It is to change the provision in the Bill that revelation of the case by the investigators to the prosecution and disclosure by the prosecution to the defence is triggered only when a plea of not guilty has been entered. The argument for the provision in the Bill is that there will be less work for the investigator—the police—and for the prosecutor if there is a reduction in the number of cases in which primary disclosure by the prosecution is required. That is an admirable objective. It is one with which we do not disagree. We, like the Government, wish to reduce the amount of work, and unnecessary work, for the police and prosecution.
However, we fear that the objective will not be achieved. That is reflected in the amendments. We have been in discussion with the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society. The Government know that it is concerned about the provisions in the Bill in this respect. That body has authorised me to say that the advice which it would give to its members if the Bill were passed unamended is this: if there is any question about the adequacy of the prosecution case the client should be advised to plead not guilty in order to gain access to the prosecution case and in order that the case should be revealed by the investigators to the prosecution. That does not merely undo the possible savings which might otherwise occur as regards work for the police and investigators. It will clog up the courts. There will be a larger number of not guilty cases which may prove to be unfounded. Indeed, under those marginal circumstances they are likely to prove to be unfounded. The result will he the opposite of that which the Government anticipate in producing this formulation.
I assure the House that it is in a spirit of seeking to make the Bill work better rather than to change in any significant way the balance between prosecution and defence that we put forward the amendments. They are
1560
designed to avoid the danger of tactical not guilty pleas which we and many of those most involved in those cases in the courts fear will be the result of the Government's proposals.
At Committee stage we put forward amendments along the same lines although by no means in the same words. One of the Government's answers was that they would create problems of timing for the primary disclosure by the prosecution and that that would in itself cause delays and anomalies. I believe that these amendments take account of those objections and that the remaining objections put forward by the Government to the thrust of the amendments are of little value and do not override the primary purpose of the amendments and the need for such provisions in the Bill if the measures—we welcome them and want them to work—are actually to work. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I must tell the House that there are serious defects with the amendments. Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1 states that Part I applies to an indictable offence or a summary offence. Because the only two kinds of offences are indictable offences and summary offences, this in effect says that Part I applies to an offence. As it stands I am afraid the amendment is meaningless. It may be intended to mean that Part I applies where an offence has been committed; or where an offence is being investigated; or where proceedings for an offence have been instituted. But the amendment does not say any of those things. And if it is concerned with the commencement of Part I, we have already catered for that in Clause 1(3) which states that Part I applies in relation to alleged offences into which no criminal investigation has begun before the appointed day.
The noble Lord appears to recognise that Part I must contain the wording of what is now Clause 1(1) and (2) because he reproduces it in Amendment No. 11 to Clause 4. It provides that the requirement to give the accused a schedule of unused material under Clause 4 applies where there is a summary trial and the accused pleads not guilty, or where the proceedings are transferred to the Crown Court. That is the effect of the Bill as it stands, without the amendments.
I should point out another effect of Amendment No. 11. That is that the prosecutor would be under no duty to make primary prosecution disclosure under Clause 3 until the accused pleads not guilty at a summary trial or the proceedings are transferred. That is because Clause 4 provides for the prosecutor to give the accused the schedule at the same time that he makes primary prosecution disclosure, and under Amendment No. 11 the prosecutor is under no duty to give the schedule until a not guilty plea is entered at a summary trial or the proceedings are transferred.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 21 to Clauses 5 and 6 have the effect of confining Clause 5 to cases where proceedings are transferred to the Crown Court and applying Clause 6 in all other circumstances. Again, this preserves the effect of the provisions which the

1561
amendments replace and is presumably intended to be consequential on Amendment No. 1 to Clause 1. But, as I have explained, that amendment is completely ineffective.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 to Clause 14. At present, Clause 14 disapplies the common law rules on disclosure (except those about whether disclosure is in the public interest) which were effective immediately before Part I of the Bill was implemented and which relate to things done after the relevant time. The amendments would re-define the relevant time for the purposes of Clause 14. Instead of tying it in to the time when the accused pleads not guilty at a summary trial, which is the trigger for prosecution disclosure elsewhere in the Bill, the relevant time would be when the accused is charged.
Let me explain what this means. Part I as a whole applies in relation to any offence into which a criminal investigation begins on or after the day on which Part I is brought into force. The duties of disclosure imposed on the prosecution under Part I apply to such offences from the point at which the accused pleads not guilty at a summary trial or the proceedings are transferred to the Crown Court. Under Clause 14, as drafted, the common law duties of disclosure, which are superseded by the Bill, end at the same point as the new statutory duties begin. There is accordingly a clean break between the two. Under these amendments, in relation to summary trials, the common law duties of disclosure end when a person is charged with an offence. There is then a gap between charge and a not guilty plea at the trial when neither the existing common law rules nor the statutory rules will apply. This may not have any effect in practice, but I do not see why there should be any gap at all.
Also, the effect of the amendments is to disapply the common law rules in relation to cases where either the accused is charged or the proceedings are transferred. But in all cases where disclosure is made, whether the proceedings are transferred, the accused will already have been charged. The effect of Amendment No. 41 would therefore be to render Amendment No. 43 completely unnecessary. It could only give rise to problems of interpretation for the courts, which would have to ask themselves why Parliament had included a specific reference to proceedings being transferred when it had no actual effect in practice.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 95, which amends Clause 40. At present, Clause 40 in effect requires magistrates' courts to invite a defendant charged with an offence triable either way to enter an indication of plea before the court considers which mode of trial (summary or indictable) is suitable. The purpose of Amendment No. 95 is to restrict the operation of the new provision to cases where the prosecutor has made primary prosecution disclosure under Clause 3 of the Bill. Accordingly, the accused would not have to give an indication until he knew what the prosecutor thought might undermine the prosecution case. But the effect of Clause 1 of the Bill as it stands is that the prosecutor is under no duty to make primary prosecution disclosure
1562
in summary trials until after the accused has pleaded not guilty. And, as I have explained, that is also the effect of Amendment No. 11 to Clause 4.
When we debated similar amendments in Committee. I explained why the duty of prosecution disclosure should not arise in summary trials until after the defendant had pleaded not guilty. If the prosecutor had to make disclosure before the accused had indicated his plea, he would be put to a great deal of work to no useful purpose in the very many cases where the accused intended to plead guilty all along. This additional burden in the generality of cases would far outweigh the benefit to be gained in borderline cases where the knowledge of what the prosecutor thought might undermine the prosecution case was sufficient to persuade an accused to plead guilty when he might otherwise have pleaded not guilty.
For all those reasons, I invite the House not to accept the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has opened the proceedings on Report from the Government Front Bench by, I am afraid, reinforcing all my worst fears. She has made no attempt whatever to address the thrust of the amendments or the issue with which the amendments are concerned. She has made no attempt to address the fears of the Law Society which, after all, represents those people who are responsible for advising accused persons about what their plea should be. She has made no attempt to say that there are other views and that the Law Society may be wrong in issuing advice to such people to plead not guilty in order to obtain the information.
The Minister has relied instead on drafting points alone. I did my best to keep up with them, but when she started by saying that Amendment No. 1 proposed that Part I should apply to any offence, she ignored the fact that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1, as drafted, apply to any offence. They are deliberately designed to apply to any offence and to spell out the different kinds of offence in order that subsequent clauses in Part I should apply in different circumstances. We knew that in Amendment No. 1 we were dealing with indictable and summary offences and that the two together add up to all offences. We proposed the amendment in order that our subsequent amendments to Part I should also cover all circumstances in the Bill. I am afraid that the same kind of argument applies throughout the Minister's textual analysis of the amendments.
It would be enormously helpful if our Report stage procedures allowed matters to be debated in a more informal way, but they do not. The procedure is that when, as on this occasion, the Minister rises immediately without, so far as I could see, looking round to ascertain whether any other noble Lords wished to take part in the discussion, that is the close of the debate. She speaks and I have the right to reply and no one else can have anything to say on the matter. I regret that she found it necessary immediately to rise to her

1563
feet, as if this were a Committee stage, without looking round to see whether there were any other contributions to be made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that anyone with powers of observation behind me will have noticed that I looked all around the Chamber not once, but twice. That was because I fully expected someone to come in on the amendment. Nothing that I have said precludes the possibility or the opportunity for anyone to speak. However, I saw no one willing to rise to speak on the amendments other than the noble Lord opposite.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is a visual record of what happens here, as well as a written record. I suggest that it would be inadvisable for those of us who disagree genuinely about what happened to do so without the results of a photo-finish.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise a second time to say that the noble Lord accuses me of something rather serious. I believe that the test of whether I stood in the way of any Member of the House speaking would be to invite anyone to stand up who wished to speak and was prevented from speaking because I rose at the Dispatch Box to answer the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has twice given us her assurance that she looked around, that she did the right thing, and I accept what she said. It was clearly her intention and it must have been my misinterpretation that anything else happened.
The fundamental thrust of the argument has not been addressed in the Minister's reply. There is no opportunity for anyone else to address it now because of the rules of debate at the Report stage. I fear that the Government are determined not to listen to the views of those who are most closely concerned with the practicalities of procedures for primary disclosure and revelation by the police. I am sure that the Minister will not mind me saying that, when she so helpfully agreed to discuss the matter with me between the Committee stage and now, she told me that the Crown Prosecution Service felt that there was no serious danger of an increase in the number of not guilty pleas. I believe that I am right about that and it is the basis on which the Government feel able to resist not just these amendments but any comparable ones.
I believe that the Minister is indicating assent. In other words, she is relying on the view of the Crown Prosecution Service. I, a non-lawyer like her, am relying on the views of the Law Society.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Under the rules, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to accept that I came here to listen to the debate. I took the same view and that is why I did not intervene. That is absolutely straight.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that and welcome the noble Lord's concern to ensure that our debates are as short as is practicable.
1564
However, the fundamental point remains. Those who are concerned with such matters on a day-to-day basis not only fear that there will be an increase in unnecessary not guilty pleas, but will actually tell their members that they should advise not guilty pleas under those circumstances. I do not think I can do justice to the arguments of those who are best informed in these matters unless I take the opinion of the House.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Airedale, L.

Judd, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Listowel, E.

Avebury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Barnett L.

Longford, E.

Berkeley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Blease, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Borrie, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Methuen, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Chapple, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Dubs, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Richard, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Geraint, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shepherd, L.

Glasgow, E.

Simon, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stallard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hams of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayman, B.

Thurso, V.

Hayter, L.

Tope, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tordoff, L

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Howell, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winston, L.

Jeger, B.

1565

NOT CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Addison, V.

Keyes, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Killearn, L.

Ailsa, M.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kitchener, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Knollys, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsay, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Blaker, L.

Liverpool, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas, L

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Burnham, L.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

McConnell, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnock, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Milverton, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cockfield, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Courtown, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Moyne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Norton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Pike, B

Eme, E.

Prentice, L.

Exmouth, V.

Quinton, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Finsberg, L.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carrnyllie, L.

Runcie, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gainford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Geddes, L.

Sandys, L.

Goold, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Haig, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stockton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinfen, L

Harrowby, E.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Trington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hogg, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Torrington, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hothfield, L.

Wakeham, L.

Howe, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Ilchester, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Ironside, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.8 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon) moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, after ("offence") insert ("in respect of which a court proceeds to summary trial and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 16, 17, 42, 44, 45, 83, 88 and 89.
These are technical amendments which are needed to ensure that the disclosure scheme operates in relation to all Crown Court cases. As currently drafted, it will apply where proceedings for the trial of an offence are transferred to the Crown Court. That will account for the vast majority of Crown Court cases. However, there are two additional sets of circumstances which need to be brought within the ambit of the scheme.
The first of these is where what is know as a voluntary bill of indictment is preferred, following an application by the prosecutor to a judge. This is a device for getting a case to the Crown Court where the normal method is impracticable or undesirable for any reason. It is seldom granted and only where the interests of justice require it.
The second is where a charge of a specified summary offence is included in an indictment with other offences connected to it which are to be tried in the Crown Court. This is an exception to the rule that offences which are summary only must be tried in a magistrates' court. Amendment No. 3 to Clause 1 brings these within the disclosure scheme for the Crown Court by extending the definition in Clause 1(2) of the circumstances in which the scheme is to apply. The other amendment to Clause 1, Amendment No. 2, is consequential. Amendments Nos. 42, 44 and 45 to Clause 14 are also consequential on Amendment No. 3 to Clause 1. They insert references to preferring a bill of indictment, including a count in an indictment, into the definition of the relevant time in Clause 14(3) for the purposes of disapplying the common law rules on disclosure in accordance with Clause 14(1). Where a voluntary bill is preferred the accused needs to know the case against him before he can be required to make defence disclosure. Amendment No. 17 to Clause 5 achieves this. It requires the service on the accused of a copy of the bill of indictment, together with a copy of the set of documents containing the evidence on which the charge is based. This will put what currently happens on a statutory basis. The other amendment to Clause 5, Amendment No. 16, is consequential.
Finally, Amendment No. 83 to Clause 21 and Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 to Clause 32 are related to the amendments to Part I. They insert references to preferring a voluntary bill of indictment into these clauses. Clause 21 applies Part III of the Bill to cases which are transferred to the Crown Court for trial. Clause 32 defines a pre-trial hearing for the purposes of Part IV with references to cases transferred to the Crown Court for trial. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, one marvels at the complexity and structure of this Bill, as proposed

1567
to be amended. However, I pay tribute to the simplicity with which this matter has been explained by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I only ask that his speech may be represented in the standard text books so that those who have to deal with this may have an opportunity to understand it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1. leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
("(a) a person is charged with an indictable offence and proceedings for the trial of the person on the charge concerned are transferred to the Crown Court,
(b) a count charging a person with a summary offence is included in an indictment under the authority of section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (common assault etc.), or
(c) a bill of indictment charging a person with an indictable offence is preferred under the authority of section 2(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (bill preferred by direction of Court of Appeal, or by direction or with consent of a judge).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert ("or not.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 4 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 78. Before doing so, it occurs to me that perhaps my remarks on the first amendment were to a degree inadequate. When the Minister said that she looked around I acknowledged that she must have done so. I realised that I ought also to have apologised to her for saying the opposite. I now complete my correction of the events as they transpired.
I do not apologise, however, for bringing forward again Amendment No. 4. I have done so only because it seems to me that the arguments in Committee against these amendments were inadequate. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, did not convince me when he said that because the Bill used the word "ascertain" it implied that the two alternatives of being guilty or not guilty were given equal weight. Similarly, the Minister did not convince me by saying that the use of the word "whether" implied that the two alternatives were given equal weight. Of course, the alternatives are implied in the phrase "ascertain whether the accused is guilty". Nobody says that that is not so.
I appeal to noble Lords who are concerned for the proper drafting of legislation. I refer in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who I do not believe was able to be present when this was previously debated. I ask noble Lords to confirm that if in court itself the question to the accused is whether he pleads guilty or not guilty, and the charge to the jury is whether they find the accused guilty or not guilty, surely they are not an unnecessary extra two words. They are there because they are meant to give equal weight to the possibility of the accused being guilty or not guilty. The police and prosecution are supposed to give as much weight to the possibility of the accused being not guilty as they do to the possibility of the accused being guilty.
I know that this is only a drafting point and it does not affect the way in which the Bill will be implemented by men and women of good will, but I believe that if these phrases are correctly used in the courts they ought also to be used on the face of the Bill. The Bill is incomplete without them. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, most miscarriages of justice in this country derive from a culture which is a sub-derivation of our adversarial system. The intelligent and reflective police officer, of whom in my experience there are many, is and should be aware of the fact that the public interest is truly, fully and faithfully served by the acquittal of the innocent just as much as by the conviction of the guilty. This is not entirely a cosmetic or semantic amendment. It is intended to reflect the principles for which I hope we all contend; namely, that an investigation into crime is not simply to establish whether a person who is charged is guilty, but whether a person who may be charged, or has been charged, may equally be not guilty or in truth innocent.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was so kind as to refer to me in my concern about drafting. I shall look at this Bill with great interest at the end of Report stage to see how Clause 1 reads and what its effect may be. It is very complicated. If it were possible to find more simple drafting at Report stage I am sure that my noble friend Baroness Blatch would wish to apply her mind to it, as indeed would the rest of us.
To be frank, I believe that Amendment No. 4. is overzealous. If an investigation is to take place to discover whether or not somebody is guilty, and that investigation causes the investigator to consider that the person is not guilty, that is the end of the matter. There is no need to overdo it and put into the Bill these extra words.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is common ground that this is not an exhortation to the police. The Bill is not incomplete without it, and as to that we have the opinion of my noble friend Lord Renton. I accept that the amendment is wholly well-intentioned to reflect principles that we all uphold but, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I question whether this part of the Bill is the appropriate vehicle to carry that thought. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was kind enough to put my point for me. It would quite wrong to seek to repeat it.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has somewhat diminished the force of the amendment by referring to it as a drafting point. I think it is rather more than a drafting point, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said. The object of it—and why I am disposed to support the amendment—is that it is meant to reflect the spirit and principles that we expect to find in the court and to be essentially even-handed throughout the Bill. A great deal of the Bill is concerned with the issue of even-handedness and balance between prosecution and defence.

1569
If indeed it is a convention to draft a Bill of this kind in this way, it is a reasonable argument for that convention to be followed today. But if there is no convention of a kind embodied in the present wording of paragraph (b), I would strongly support the amendment as more clearly expressing what I am sure that the House wants.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, with respect, this amendment seems very curious. It seeks to insert into subsection (4)(b) the words "or not". The paragraph would then read:
"whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it or not".
The amendment does not seek to insert those words into subsection (4)(a), making it read:
"whether a person should be charged with an offence or not".
It seems very curious to have the words "or not" so that once that the person has been charged the police have to think whether he is guilty or not but, when he has not been charged, the police do not have to bother to think about that but only about whether to charge him. If we are to have even-handedness, we should have even-handedness between paragraphs (a) and (b).
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Blatch indicated in Committee, the Government's view is that these amendments are unnecessary. That is a view clearly supported in the House today by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The amendments are unnecessary because the process of considering whether a person is guilty of an offence must necessarily involve considering whether he is not guilty. In my submission, it would be a very different matter if the Bill as framed defined a criminal investigation in terms of ascertaining or determining that a person was guilty of an offence rather than whether he was guilty.
Perhaps the most forceful point that can be made in response to the amendments arises from the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Inquiry has been made since the matter was before your Lordships in Committee. The precedent adopted in the amendment is one that has been used in the past; for example, in Section 7(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Section 31(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992. Both those sections are framed in terms of "an investigation into whether a person has committed an offence". The words "or not" are not used in either section. If the Bill were to be amended in the way suggested by the noble Lord, it might cast doubt on the interpretation of similar provisions, such as those I have quoted, were those to be the subject of construction before a court of law.
For all those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not claim that the amendment was a simplifying amendment. It adds words. It adds only two words but it does add words to the Bill. I said that it was a drafting point and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers disagreed.
1570
I remind him that he said in Committee that it was a higher drafting point. Therefore, perhaps we are not so far apart as might appear.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for seeking to do what the Minister undertook to do in Committee when challenged; namely, to look for precedent for the use of the word "guilty" without the words "or not" added. It must have taken a great deal of research to find a rather pathetic couple of road traffic (or whatever) Bills which have nothing to do with the operation of the system of criminal justice. If I ask the Minister now to tell me before Third Reading whether there are any examples to the contrary—in other words examples of legislation having been drafted with the words "or not"—we can perhaps see what he comes up with. I rather suspect that there will he many more examples. It is not just in legislation but in the courts where the equal weight implied by the words "guilty or not guilty" are so well known, so well established, and so valuable a part of our criminal procedure. It is important that everybody concerned should be in no doubt about the equal weight given to the two possibilities.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe queried whether the words "or not" should apply in other places as well. That may be so. I must remind the House that we are not talking so much about the wording of Clause I itself but the effect of Clause 1 as the trigger for primary disclosure by the prosecution to the defence. That is the fundamental issue which determines the range of material revealed by the police to the prosecutor and disclosed by the prosecutor to the accused. That is the true importance of being sure that the police and the prosecutor work in an even-handed way to make sure that what they produce is not distorted by any misunderstanding of the balance of emphasis which ought to be required in legislation.
I do not believe that I am wrong. I think that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pursues his researches he will find sufficient and perhaps more relevant examples of the use of the wording that I propose. Clearly, this is not a matter on which I shall seek the opinion of the House on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [General interpretation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) References to inspection are to inspecting and examining, whether by the accused, his legal representative or an expert instructed by them.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6, which occurs at the same place in the Bill. This may only he a probing amendment. I am not sure. It depends on what Ministers say in response. But as we read the Bill it does not require the investigator to allow the prosecutor to have access to the material which has been revealed to him as well as being told about it; and it does require the prosecutor to allow the defence to examine

1571
material as well as being told about it. Therefore, we seek to clarify the references to the words "inspect" and "reveal".
I remind the House that the word "reveal" was introduced in government amendments only at Committee stage. So we are in a state of some flux about the wording to be used in the Bill. We suggest that further points of provision in Clause 2, which, after all, is a clause of general interpretation, would be helpful in making sure that inspection includes examination as well as inspection and that revelation includes inspection as well as providing a copy. We believe that those precautions are necessary to make sure that revelation and disclosure are as complete and even-handed as possible. If there is any doubt, we should wish that doubt to be removed. I very much hope—indeed, I expect—that the Minister will be able to allay our fears. I gladly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be so good as to help us by letting us know where the word "revealing" comes later in the Bill. I have been looking for it and although my eyesight is fairly acute, I have not yet come across it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, looks back at the amendment moved in Committee by the Government he will find that a whole series of amendments contained the word "disclosed" which was previously used for the transmission of information from the investigator to the prosecution. That is replaced on a number of occasions—I do not have them all at my fingertips—by the word "revealed".
It was explained by the Minister that no change in meaning was intended by the switch from "disclosed" to "revealed". The intention was to make a distinction in wording between those two stages of the process. I do not remember on how many occasions the change occurred. There may have been half-a-dozen or so cases of the word "revealed" which is why it is appropriate for a general interpretation clause to include a more precise exposition of what the word means.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may now express my humble view on the two amendments. I do not believe that Amendment No. 5 is necessary. The word "inspection" in the context in which it is used in the Bill does not need elaboration in the way proposed by the amendment. An inspection is an inspection, whether it is done on behalf of the accused, the prosecution, a legal representative or anybody else. There must be precedent for that in this branch of the law.
In relation to the word "revealed", I confess that I am handicapped. As the noble Lord said, I was not able to be present at the Committee stage and, in glancing—admittedly rather quickly—through the pages of the Bill, I have not come across the word "revealed". However, I assume that the different contexts in which that expression is used will be enough to disclose what the word means. Again, I should not have thought that Amendment No. 6 was necessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I take a rather different view to that of my noble friend Lord Renton. I wholly support the spirit in which the amendments are tabled, if only to seek the assurance that neither is necessary. I hope that the spirit of the amendments, which I support 100 per cent., will he the subject of an assurance from my noble and learned friend the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has done the House a service by tabling the amendments.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support the amendments essentially on the basis specified by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. This is a matter of great significance in the conduct of criminal trials and in particular in their preparation by those who represent defendants.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, we do not necessarily ask that the Government accept the amendments. We will be satisfied with an absolute assurance that "inspection" means more than the bare word implies. Perhaps I can give one or two examples with which we are all familiar in practice. Increasingly, prosecutors rely on DNA evidence. A defendant must have the prerogative, as of legal right, to have examinations carried out rather than simply the bare "inspection" implied in the present word. Handwriting samples may need to be tested; blood samples may need to be tested. As we all know too well and too sadly from recent cases, documents may be tested by ESDA. All those matters ought to be available as of right on disclosure. If the Minister is able to say that that will always obtain, our fears will be put to rest. They are not idle fears in the context of what we know about the reliance sometimes placed on detailed examinations as well as cursory inspections of documents, samples and exhibits.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, perhaps I can follow that by expressing my agreement with the importance of this issue and the hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance. These points were discussed in considerable detail during the deliberations of the Royal Commission and an assurance will he most welcome. I hope that the Minister can give it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful if I began by addressing the request from all sides of the House for an assurance. I can give such an assurance unequivocally. "Inspection" will include examinations of the nature described by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. As he rightly says, increasingly in criminal trials forensic examination of tissue material, documentary material, blood samples and the like is of crucial importance in determining whether or not a man ought to be properly convicted of the charge he faces. Therefore, in seeking to persuade your Lordships that the amendments are unnecessary, I give a clear assurance that "inspection" will include examination by a legal representative, any forensic scientist or other expert instructed to assist an accused man in preparing his defence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. Am I to understand that that means examination as of right?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, yes, subject to the usual provisions for preserving such material so that it can, in the passage of time, be produced in court if production is necessary. There is no question of there being any discretion on the part of the prosecution to grant in some cases but to refuse in others. On that basis, Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary. "Inspection" encompasses examination, and the right of the accused to carry out an inspection encompasses the right to instruct his legal representative or any other expert to deal with the matter on his behalf.
In relation to Amendment No. 6, perhaps I should begin by assisting my noble friend Lord Renton. One finds reference to the term "revealed" in Clause 16(1)(c) and (d) of the Bill. In so far as the amendment is tabled as an amendment to Part I, a technical point may arise but it is not the appropriate part of the Bill in which to make such an addition. However, the main opposition to the amendment is that it is unnecessary.
Under the provisions of Clauses 16 and 17 as presently drafted, the Bill allows for both the prosecutor and the accused to inspect and, in appropriate cases, obtain a copy of any material that can he copied. In particular, in regard to the prosecutor, the code—a draft of which has been available to your Lordships and which is discussed in detail in the provisions of Clause 17—makes specific reference to what is provided in relation to copies being made available. The relevant subsections are (4), (5) and (6).
On the basis of that explanation and, more importantly, the assurances given to your Lordships' House, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench and whether or not it is a question of right, I thought the Minister said "in some cases". I may be wrong. I thought the Minister made a qualification in terms of whether it was a right. It may simply have been an error, but it seemed to me that the Minister qualified his response. If it is a right, it must be a right without qualification.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, any confusion is due to my accent rather than the language that I used. No qualification is included in the assurance. My example reinforces the point that there is no question that the right would be available in some instances and not in others.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to say that there was no question of a distinction being applied, and I took that as an absolute assurance.
I am not quite so clear about the noble and learned Lord's response to Amendment No. 16 because he used the words "appropriate cases" in regard to copies, but I think he meant that "appropriate cases" means when a copy is possible and not that the prosecution should have a discretion as to whether copies should be
1574
provided. It is only a matter of physical possibility. I gladly take his silence as being confirmation that that is what he intended.
I could not ask for more because I have received the assurances that I was looking for. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Clause 3 [Primary disclosure by prosecutor]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 20, leave out second ("the") and insert ("a reasonable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 26.
We raised this issue at Committee stage and took note of the opinion of the Committee on a different amendment to that which is now proposed. However, the issue of whether there should he an objective test for material that is to be disclosed is of such profound importance that it is necessary to return to it.
We object to the provision in Clause 3(1)(a) in regard to prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused. That is not good enough. We are not contesting the fact that prosecutors will have to take a view. We know that in practice that is the case. However, if the definition of what is to be disclosed is that which in the prosecutor's opinion should be disclosed, what would be the position if there is a subsequent query in the Court of Appeal or by the Criminal Cases Review Authority, for example, as to whether the conviction is safe. The answer given by the prosecutor could be: "I may have been wrong but in my opinion this is what I should do." If there is no objective test and the prosecutor's opinion is the only criterion, that could have very serious consequences. There is the possibility of miscarriages of justice. That would be a return to the position before the establishment of a Royal Commission. The same would apply if there were no power to re-examine forensic evidence in order to find a different interpretation from that arrived at originally.
The prosecutor's opinion should not be the ultimate deciding factor in disclosing material to the accused as part of the disclosure process. It cannot have been the Government's intention that that should be the case. I can understand that the Government wish to recognise that the prosecutor has to make a judgment at the beginning of the process as to what should he included. We understand that position, but that is implicit in the Bill whether or not the amendments are accepted.
The Government cannot have intended that that should be the end of the matter and that there should be no objective test in the event of a query and a possible miscarriage of justice.
I move the amendment in a spirit of appeal to the Government. I do not think that they intend the possible grievous harm that might occur if those words are left in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wholly support the amendment. It is a very important principle. I wholly support the objective test. If there is no objective test it is all but impossible to apply and enforce the provisions as they are intended to be applied. A subjective test may be totally honest but totally erroneous. That is not a satisfactory yardstick for an important matter of this order. I should also like to ask the Government if they would be good enough to consider the matter with an open mind.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support the amendment on the basis that there is a tradition in this country which causes the libertarian right and the libertarian left to join hands. The tradition and principle for which I contend is that state power, whatever its name, should be subject to sensible restriction.
I concede, not on behalf of the first signatory to the amendment, that the amendment might have been more gracefully put on the basis of "in the prosecutor's reasonable opinion".
Lord Renton: Hear, hear.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am fortified by the nod and the audible support from the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
There can be no rational basis for objecting to the second amendment because it is intended to clarify the position that such decisions should be based on reason and not a subjective view.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The amendment would relieve the prosecutor of an invidious position. I cannot think that the prosecuting authority would object to the amendment.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I support the amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is correct in saying that the amendments should not contain the words "reasonable prosecutor", but that they should include the words, "in the reasonable opinion of the prosecutor".
Clause 3(3) refers to material that consists of recorded information. The prosecutor may decline to produce a copy because he says that it is not desirable. The accused then asks the judge to tell him to produce a copy. The judge says he cannot see any reason for not doing so, but as the prosecutor tells him that it is not desirable, that is his opinion and he cannot overrule that position. That is fantastical. I urge the Government to bring forward an amendment containing the words "in the reasonable opinion of the prosecutor".
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the first amendment seeks to change the test for primary prosecution disclosure from a subjective test that is reliant on the opinion of the prosecutor to an objective test. Material would be disclosed if, in the opinion of the reasonable prosecutor, it might undermine the prosecution case rather than if the individual prosecutor thought that it might have that effect.
I have to confess to doubts over whether the amendment would make any difference in practice. These provisions of the Bill plainly place the prosecutor under certain duties of disclosure. In discharging those duties the prosecutor will, as always, be bound by professional ethics and specifically, if he is a member of the Crown Prosecution Service, by the code for Crown prosecutors which requires him to act so as to secure a fair trial.
In considering what material is required to be disclosed to the accused, the prosecutor will bring his best judgment to bear. The amendment would require him to consider what the opinion of a reasonable prosecutor might be and not just, as the Bill does now, what is his opinion. Surely it is human nature for us to assume that our opinions are the opinions of a reasonable person. Surely a prosecutor will form his opinion on the assumption that it is a reasonable one, especially if he is acting in a professional capacity and discharging duties prescribed by statute. So I do not think that in practice the amendment would achieve any improvements in the way the disclosure regime operates. It seems strange that a prosecutor performing a public duty under an ethical code as well as under a duty to act fairly and reasonably must somehow or other think of another reasonable prosecutor's judgment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No.
Baroness Blatch: That is the effect of the amendment. He must actively think how a reasonable prosecutor would make the judgment. The assumption is that he is not a reasonable prosecutor or a prosecutor thinking reasonably and acting ethically under the codes to which he is bound.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not appreciate that, as the matter stands, if someone challenges the decision of the prosecutor, that person is bound by the prosecutor merely standing up and saying, "That is my opinion. However unreasonable it may be, that's my opinion and that's the end of the matter"? If the word "reasonable" goes in, the judge can say, "Your opinion is not reasonable. Therefore you have to do it".
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend not appreciate that a perfectly reasonable prosecutor, because he is human, can act unreasonably?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is a real distinction between what the amendment says and what has been suggested in the course of discussing the amendment. We would all want the prosecutor to

1577
act reasonably and we would all want to see that something could be done about it if he was not acting reasonably. However, the amendments ask him in effect to think how a reasonable prosecutor might think. What we want is a prosecutor thinking reasonably and fairly in coming to a judgment about what should be disclosed. There is a distinction in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I should like to take that away and reflect upon it between now and the Third Reading.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's final remarks. I should like to think that there is a genuine misunderstanding about the purpose of these amendments. I recognise that the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is marginally different from the one I am making in the amendment itself. I still think that to take out the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" does not mean that the prosecutor has to stand behind himself and pretend he is someone else. What we are seeking to do is to put on the face of the statute what the Minister has rightly described as the ethical rules under which prosecutors have to operate.
The trouble with the ethical rules under which prosecutors have to operate is that they may change and Parliament will not know. I have great faith in the director of the Crown Prosecution Service and I have no reason to suppose that the service is deliberately acting unethically. But I do say that the way my amendment is drafted still provides that the prosecutor has to make up his own mind about the matter of disclosure. That is a matter of fact. There is no other way of doing it. He cannot appeal to someone else. What I am saying is that if, under my amendment, his opinion is not the final arbiter or, under the type of amendment suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, he is required to be reasonable in coming to that conclusion, there is something which can be objectively tested afterwards.
I am very much encouraged by the support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and by the support also, with a slight difference, of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the most effective support of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. On the basis of the Minister's undertaking to think again, and on the basis that we may indeed be looking for the same solution, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 22, after ("accused") insert ("or which in the interests of justice should be disclosed").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 8 covers a different point but it is one of very considerable importance. We have thought carefully about the wording since we covered the same issue in Committee. What we sought to do before was to alter significantly the wording of Clause 3(1)(a), which is perhaps the most important single subsection in the whole of Part I. It is the subsection
1578
which triggers the definition of what material has to be disclosed by the prosecutor under the primary disclosure provisions.
We have talked about the prosecutor's opinion. In Committee we expressed our unhappiness about the inadequacy of the phrase,
"might undermine the case for the prosecution".
It is very difficult, we confess, to come up with a positive phrase that would adequately express our concern for the equality of arms which, I think it is agreed on all sides of the House, is the basis of the disclosure provisions. Therefore, with some regret, we have fallen back on a form of words which leaves it to the judges. In other words,
"which in the interests of justice should be disclosed",
enables, in the case of any query, the judges to say that they have the responsibility in their interpretation of the law for the interests of justice and under those circumstances they think that the prosecutor did or did not behave properly in exercising his powers and responsibilities under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
I would much prefer a form of words which explicitly expressed our desire for equality of arms. However, I recognise the difficulties and I recognise the defects of the wording we sought to use last time. I hope, therefore, that our fall-back position, which is to rely, I suppose, on the ethical principles on which our legal system is based, will be acceptable to the Government and to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am afraid that I have to oppose the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has certainly been straightforward with your Lordships, as he always is. It is a fall-back amendment. There are difficulties in its drafting. It is far to vague, it is far too woolly, it is not necessary, and it would be the source of vast confusion. I have to oppose it hull down.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, as drafted, Clause 3 provides that the prosecutor must disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which, in the prosecutor's opinion, might undermine the case for the prosecution. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has said, this amendment considerably widens the test for prosecution disclosure to include material which should be disclosed "in the interests of justice". In doing so, it imposes an obligation on the prosecution, as opposed to the current discretion, to go beyond the current requirement of primary prosecution disclosure. It thus dismantles the reciprocal nature of the disclosure scheme whereby further prosecution disclosure is subject to disclosure by the accused.
It is worth recording that throughout the trial the prosecutor remains under a continuing duty to disclose. If the amendment were accepted, the improvements in the disclosure regime, which the Government believe are needed and which the Bill

1579
seeks to make, would not be secured. The whole purpose of, and rationale for, the Bill would be undermined by the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I confess that I find that an extraordinary answer. All the amendment says is that there shall be a further test in the interests of justice. It does not in any way seek to undermine any of the subsequent procedures or the duties and responsibilities of the prosecutor. It simply says that there shall be an objective test, as there is in so much legislation, including this legislation. This is what happens at the present time. I am sorry that we do not have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I do not really know what "hull down" means, but it sounds very threatening. In view of the quite unequivocal rejection of this amendment by the Minister and in view of its importance and that of the test for primary disclosure, it is necessary to seek the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I tell him that "hull down" means hovering over the horizon, waiting for the enemy to come out.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have never heard of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, hovering over the horizon. He is usually at much closer quarters than that.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Airedale, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hooson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L

Borrie, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Desai, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dubs. L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Moms, L

Glasgow, E.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Hamwee, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

1580

Redesdale, L.

Thurso, V.

Richard, L.

Tope, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Tordoff, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Seear, B.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Kenyon, L.

Acton, L.

Knollys, V.

Addison, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ailsa, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Leigh, L

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lindsay, E

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Liverpool, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Blaker, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cadman, L.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mersey, V.

Camock, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mottistone, L

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Moyne, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Munster, E.

Cross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pike, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Prentice, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Quinton, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Erne, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Flather, B.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rennell, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hayhoe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hogg, B.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Teynham, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Torrington, V.

Hothfield, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakeharn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Primary disclosure: further provisions]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) and the prosecutor has satisfied himself that the document includes all material except sensitive material.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment but it refers to the important issue of who is to decide what is sensitive material. I shall not detain the House by reading out the full definition of "sensitive material". We put that in an amendment at Committee stage and it is available for inspection by your Lordships in the code of practice which the Government have kindly placed in the Library and made available more generally to the House. Anybody who has looked at it will realise that the definition of "sensitive material" is very wide. It starts with matters of national security and goes on to include matters of intelligence and foreign intelligence. It quite properly includes the protection of the identity of witnesses who might otherwise be at risk, and a whole range of provisions for material which, because it is sensitive, is not only not disclosed, but its existence is not disclosed in a schedule.
The question is simply: who shall be responsible for deciding what is sensitive and what is not sensitive? The Bill as drafted allows the investigator, the police, to decide what is sensitive and what is not sensitive. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the police and of the rules which govern police investigations, both under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and, I hope, in the code of practice under Part II which will eventually be agreed and approved by Parliament. At the same time, however, I suggest that the police themselves would not wish to be the sole arbiters of what is sensitive and what is not. In the end, it is the prosecutor (who has the responsibility of deciding what is disclosed to the defence) who should also have the responsibility of deciding what is sensitive and what is not, and he should do so having had the opportunity to inspect the material which is claimed to be sensitive as well as the material which is not claimed to be sensitive.
We are seeking to provide in Clause 4 that the prosecutor should satisfy himself
"that the document includes all material except sensitive material".
I do not think that it is an earth-shattering amendment. It is not intended in any way to diminish the very great responsibilities which the Bill will place on the police. It is intended to ensure that the prosecutor, who is ultimately responsible to the courts for the disclosure process, shall be able to, and shall, satisfy himself that sensitive material has been withheld and that non-sensitive material has not been withheld. There is no proposal to change the definition of what is "sensitive". It is simply a matter of who is responsible for deciding what is and what is not sensitive. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. We are concerned with sensitive material
1582
which can affect national security. Under the Bill, the investigator decides what is sensitive. There are very few Silks at the Bar who are cleared for security. At this moment I am not; at one time I was, but for other reasons than my profession. It is most important that such material should not go beyond the investigator. For those reasons, national security being of paramount importance, I oppose the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry to say that for the very reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, set out, I entirely support the amendment. Of course, relatively few leading counsel would be cleared for security purposes, but they are precisely those who would be nominated to prosecute in such a class of case. I believe that to be well known. The noble Lord said that it is important that this should not go outside the province of the investigator; I profoundly disagree. It is in precisely that class of case that one needs a different view—not a partisan view, but a view from someone who has the ethical duties which the Minister has rightly referred to on numerous occasions. It is essential that one has a filter. There is no danger to national security if the matter is considered by counsel and, in extreme cases, considered if necessary by the Attorney-General. It is an important principle, for which we shall continue to contend.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as presently framed, the amendment would place an obligation on the prosecutor to satisfy himself that the schedule of non-sensitive material provided under Clause 17(3) includes all the non-sensitive material. Accordingly, in addition to the issues of national security which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised, the effect of the amendment would he to duplicate work that would have been carried out by a police officer acting in accordance with the code of practice. That duplication of work may have the effect of lessening the importance which the police officer attaches to the obligation that is placed upon him. Moreover, it would also place a heavy burden on the prosecutor who, in order to comply with the requirement, would need to check through all the material that the police had obtained in the course of the investigation.
The duplication arises in that Clause 16 requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice, the provisions of which are designed to secure that the information obtained in a criminal investigation is recorded; that that record and any other material so obtained is retained; and that it is disclosed to the prosecutor who is given a written statement that activities required by the code have been fully complied with and carried out.
Clause 17 enables the code to provide that a police officer must give a prosecutor a document indicating the nature of any material in his possession which is of a prescribed description and which he does not believe is sensitive, and stating that he does not believe that it is sensitive.

1583
Those are important safeguards. It is in view of them and of the duplication of work that would result if the amendment were agreed to, together with the unnecessary burdens that would be placed on the prosecutor, and having regard to the view of national security which was taken by my noble friend Lord Campbell, that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to sensitive material as relating particularly to national security. I would be astonished if as much as 1 per cent. of sensitive material related to national security. Much more of it will be about, for example, material given in confidence—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, that is one of the definitions of "sensitive material". As I said earlier, the protection of witnesses is also involved. Sensitive material goes very much wider than issues of national security and even if issues of national security were to be of paramount importance, which I do not believe that they are in this context, the answer given by my noble friend Lord Williams is entirely convincing.
We are not talking about any member of the legal profession; we are talking about senior members of the Crown Prosecution Service. If there is any question of sensitive material, surely those senior members of the Crown Prosecution Service can be trusted to see the material and decide whether it should be classified as sensitive
I am utterly unconvinced by the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that somehow to have a further view of the prosecutor would be—and I noted the words that he used—"lessening the importance" of the police investigation because they would know that someone else would look at the case. I think more highly of the police. I believe that they will do their job properly because it must be done properly and because the code of practice provides for that. They will do it no less properly because someone else will look at their work afterwards. In the end, the court will look at all of the work that the police have done. That does not mean that the police have any less a sense of importance about adhering to proper standards.
I was not at all convinced by the argument, but it is not a matter on which I wish to seek the opinion of the House on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Compulsory disclosure by accused]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("condition in subsection (2) is") and insert ("conditions in subsections (2) and (2A) are").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak to Amendment No. 18 and to Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 in Clause 10. They are all concerned with equality of arms; in other words, securing as far as possible, within the limits of what is reasonable to expect of the Crown Prosecution Service, that it should provide sufficient information to enable the defence to make a proper response in terms of defence disclosure.
We believe—the key wording is to be found in Amendment No. 18 rather than in Amendment No. 14—that the prosecution should make a proper statement of its case as part of primary disclosure; in other words, as part of the trigger for secondary disclosure. The words used in Amendment No. 18 are:
"(a) the principal facts of the case for the prosecution;
(b) the witnesses who will speak to those facts;
(c) any exhibits relevant to those facts;
(d) any proposition of law on which the prosecution proposes to rely;
(e) the consequences in relation to any of the counts in the indictment that appear to the prosecutor to flow from the matters falling within paragraphs (a) to (d).".
The amendments properly reflect the concerns which were discussed at some length in the report of the Royal Commission. They ensure that we have the equality of arms that is necessary and that they will result in better and fuller defence disclosures which will in turn affect beneficially the subsequent conduct of the preparation of the cases for the defence and the prosecution and, therefore, in the end result in a better trial.
As always, the amendments are constructive. They are not designed to deter the prosecution from doing its job properly or to make it more difficult for the prosecution to do its job properly. They are designed to enable the defence to give a better account of itself at the defence disclosure stage. I hope that on that basis they will be acceptable to the House.
I recognise that in many cases the conditions that have been laid down for a primary prosecution disclosure will cover the points which I have read out and which are provided for in Amendment No. 18. But surely it is desirable not only that they should be covered obliquely and incidentally in the wording of the Bill but that they should be explicit in the Bill. That is what a case statement is. That is the trigger, for example, for a preparatory hearing and that is what is possible and necessary for the defence to see in order to make a proper disclosure in turn. That is what ought to be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support the spirit of the amendment. I have the advantage of having a copy of a letter which was written to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She has said that the provision is unnecessary, that it would involve a great deal of work and would be very expensive. I appreciate that it would involve more work and would carry with it expense. However, it is the result of the Government wanting a far greater disclosure than was anticipated by the Royal Commission.

1585
I do not criticise the Government for wanting a greater disclosure. The more cards on the table, so long as that does not conflict with the burden of proof, the better. The litigation can be dealt with not only more quickly but more effectively. Perhaps I may remind the House that all that was being sought by the Royal Commission can he found at page 99, paragraph 68, in these terms:
"In most cases the disclosure of the defence should be a matter capable of being handled by the defendant's solicitor, (in the same way that alibi notices are usually dealt with at present). Standard forms could be drawn up to cover the most common offences, with the solicitor having only to tick one or more of a list of possibilities, such as "accident", "self-defence", "consent", "no dishonest intent", "no appropriation", "abandoned goods", "claim of right", "mistaken identification" and so on. There will be complex cases which may require the assistance of counsel in formulating the defence".
That is not the approach of the Crown in this situation. The Crown is seeking, by reason of the defence statement, what amounts, if this were a civil case, to a full defence answering the statement of claim. It places the obligation upon the defendant to state, in regard to the material provided to him, the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution and in the case of each such matter the reasons why he has taken issue with the prosecution.
I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect him to do that if all that is provided to him is a bundle of witness statements and an indication of the nature of the offence. There are all kinds of inferences which might or might not be open to be drawn from those statements. The Crown is wanting the accused to focus on what is, if I may use the inelegant phrase, the guts of the potential prosecution so that he can say in terms, "I don't agree with this inference, I don't agree with this suggestion and these are my reasons".
The Crown cannot have it both ways. Either it goes to the additional expense of providing a statement, perhaps not as full as that required in the amendment but certainly a great deal more than a mere bundle of witness statements, or it reduces the obligation upon the defendant to answer the various matters which the defence statement involves. The Crown must make up its mind which it wants, and for the moment I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I take a different view from that expressed by the noble and learned Lord. I would not have thought that proposed paragraphs (a) to (d) in Amendment No. 18 were necessary. Indeed, I would have thought that those matters had been broadly covered in the Bill's provisions. If that is not so, I should like to be told that I am wrong.
As regards paragraphs (e), that is mere argument. I could never support the amendment in that form. There is absolutely no necessity for the prosecutor to deploy his argument as to the consequences in relation to counts" in order to put the accused on notice of the guts of the allegation. That is really going too far. In any event, such matters of consequence are matters of presentation. It is quite possible that, until the ruling of the court is received, it is impossible to crystallise
1586
exactly what are the consequences. However, what one can do for the Crown is to say, "These are the facts and these are the propositions of law on which we are going to rely". One cannot go beyond that. One cannot start trying to deal with consequences. That would he wholly oppressive. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I suggest that that would be wholly unsuitable for this kind of procedure.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in view of the criticism just made by my noble friend, I wonder whether he has overlooked Clauses 24 and 25. I say that because the wording used in the amendment seems to me to have been lifted out of the legislation itself.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I should like to welcome and endorse the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, while entirely appreciating the force of the rejoinder by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with whom I entirely agree as regards the unpredictability of consequences. We are all agreed that we want earlier and better preparation of criminal trials—and I believe that we all agree in the House that the thrust of the Bill will achieve that aim—but the question is whether precisely the right balance has been struck or, indeed, as nearly as is practicable. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is right to say that there is a danger in the Crown trying to have it both ways.
In the great majority of cases I believe that the procedure should be fairly straightforward in practice. I am not persuaded that the ticking of boxes is quite so naïve a procedure as the noble and learned Lord suggests. I say that because, as we all know, the overwhelming majority of cases—even those which go through the Crown Court; and I say nothing of the magistrates' court—are relatively straightforward.
I am sure that most of us in this House are very concerned about the complex as well as the serious cases; and, indeed, particularly the serious and complex cases. It is in that respect that I believe there is a real risk that justice will not be done if—and I echo again the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Acknerthe—Crown tries to have it both ways. I hope that Ministers will be willing to take that point as seriously as I am quite sure it deserves to be taken.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment. Indeed, the key to its support is to be found in the speeches just made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It cannot be overstressed that most cases—and I shall no doubt be disbarred for saying this—in the Crown Court tried under criminal procedures are relatively simple and straightforward. Ticking the boxes, which is a rather crude description of what the Royal Commission recommended, is utterly adequate and sufficient for the overwhelming bulk of those cases.
If one looks at what the amendment requests, one finds no more than the defendant would find in the competent opening by competent prosecution counsel of the case against the defendant, which the latter would then hear for the first time as he sits in court having

1587
been arraigned on the first day of the trial. I echo the phrase of the noble Viscount: if the Crown wants earlier and better disclosure, why cannot that be done in the suggested form before the opening that I have just described?
Any opening will deal with these matters: why are the facts contended; what are the propositions of law; who are the witnesses generally to be relied upon; and, what are the consequences which follow? That is no more than would be disclosed in the opening to a trial. If the view of the present Government is that further disclosure is required for the efficient and just management of a criminal justice system, it seems to me that there is nothing to be said in principle against the thrust of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, the House will recall that the issues were debated in Committee and that consideration was given to the proposals which would require the service of a prosecution case statement upon the accused in the terms set out in the first amendment. It is clear from the reference that the noble and learned Lord made to previous correspondence involving my noble friend the Minister that the Government have thought about the matter most carefully. But, having done so, the Government remain of the view that to require a prosecution case statement in every case would be undesirable and would place an additional burden on the prosecution without materially assisting the accused in every case to which, of course, the amendment refers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, referred to a balance having to be struck. In my submission, an appropriate balance has been struck. In all cases which are transferred to the Crown Court for trial, the prosecutor must serve specified information about his case so that the accused knows what is the case against him. In general, that information will be a notice of the prosecution case which specifies the charges against the accused in relation to the proceedings being transferred. It will also include a set of documents containing the evidence on which the charges are based. In two special kinds of case—namely, serious or complex fraud and certain violent or sexual offences involving children—the information will be a copy of the documents containing the evidence to which a notice of transfer given under the relevant legislation refers.
The information is a full account of the evidential material on which the prosecution would propose to rely. I beg to suggest that, in almost every case, it will leave no doubt whatever about what the prosecution case is against the accused. Where that is so, requiring the production of an additional document which contains information about the prosecution case will add nothing to the primary evidence. I do not believe that the accused needs such an additional document in the circumstances proposed in order to comply with the requirements on him in Clause 5 of the Bill. Indeed, upon the basis of information already given, he will be well able to indicate the matters upon which he takes issue with the prosecution and the reason why he does so.
1588
Where a case is so complex that it requires a secondary document in order to steer and navigate through the prosecution evidence, it seems to me, on the basis of my understanding of the procedure in England, that it would be likely to fall within the class of case where the judge may order a preparatory hearing under Clause 22, either at his own instance or by way of an application from the prosecutor; or, indeed, from the accused man himself. In such a case a detailed prosecution statement will then be provided.
The only effect in practice would be to add to prosecution costs and inject a further element of delay in bringing cases to trial. I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service has estimated that it would add some £4.5 million to its costs to produce such a statement in each and every case. I submit that that expenditure would not be justified.
The content of the prosecution case statement to be required in all cases would indeed be the same as in a preparatory hearing. However, as I have already suggested, a preparatory hearing is designed only for potentially long or complex cases and not the relatively straightforward case to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has referred. In those long or complex cases the benefits of having the statement outweigh the burdens which may be imposed by the preparation stage and certainly outweigh the burden of any expense that may be incurred. However, that does not apply in the generality of cases. For those reasons I invite your Lordships to take the view that what is proposed would not carry sufficient benefits to outweigh the disadvantages that I have mentioned.
I shall now discuss Amendments Nos. 30 to 35. The House will again recall that we debated these amendments in Committee. As my noble friend Lady Blatch explained on that occasion, the Government consider that there are good reasons for Clause 10 to remain as it is. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommended that the accused should be required to disclose information about his case. It foresaw the possibility of the accused attempting to evade the requirement in some way and for thus reason it recommended sanctions in the form of the drawing of inferences in certain circumstances. These were putting forward a defence at trial without giving any indication in advance; or relying on a different defence at trial from the one disclosed earlier; or disclosing in advance a number of inconsistent defences. The Government accepted this recommendation and Clause 10(1)(a), (c) and (d) give effect to it. The effect of Amendments Nos. 30 to 35 would be to depart from the Royal Commission's recommendation in applying paragraphs (a) and (d) to both parties to the proceedings, and removing paragraph (c) altogether.
The effect of removing paragraph (c) is that it will be open to the accused to set out any number of inconsistent defences in a defence statement so as to trigger the maximum possible disclosure of additional material by the prosecutor, whether or not he intends to rely on any of those defences, and to do so without any sanction. It will completely undermine the scheme in the Bill.

1589
In relation to the other amendments, the Bill does not provide for an inference to be drawn if the prosecutor fails to serve any information about the prosecution case, or serves such information late, or departs from his case. There are good reasons for this, too. The prosecutor is already required to serve a notice of the prosecution case or a notice of transfer under existing statutory provisions. If he does not do so, two consequences may follow. One is that the accused is not required to make defence disclosure in Crown Court cases at all, and accordingly no inference can be drawn from that. That is the effect of Clause 5(1)(c). The second, and more likely, consequence is that the case will not he allowed to proceed. Similarly, if the prosecutor serves the information late—that is, has not done so before the appropriate time for defence disclosure—the accused is not required to give a defence statement. That is because the time limits for these procedures will link defence disclosure to the disclosure of unused material by the prosecutor rather than to the service of the prosecution case. The prosecutor will need to ensure that he complies with the other statutory requirements in relation to the service of his case in good time.
The position is a little different in relation to a departure from the prosecution case. In the light of any new information after pre-trial disclosure has taken place, understandably, the case for the prosecution may change. If there is new evidence against the accused, the prosecutor is under a separate and long-standing duty under the existing law to serve it on the accused so that he is not taken by surprise at trial. If the prosecutor failed to do so, the accused would be able to apply for an adjournment. If there is new prosecution evidence or a change in the prosecution case, the defence case may also change. But the Bill already caters for that in Clause 10(4), by requiring the court to have regard to the extent of the difference from the defence statement and the reason for it, before deciding whether to comment or draw any adverse inference. If the change is a consequence of something done by the prosecution, I think it unlikely that the court would allow such an inference to be drawn. On the other hand, if the change results simply from a desire by the accused to surprise the prosecution, and the prosecution case itself has not changed, I think it is more likely that the court would allow an inference to be drawn. For all these reasons I invite the House to reject the proposed amendments.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am heartened by the support which has been expressed for these amendments, notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. They encourage me to think that we are not quite as stupid as some people think we are.
Despite what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, I was not claiming that these amendments would assist the accused in every case. He said that they would act without materially assisting the accused in every case. Of course they will not assist in every case, but if we are to look at this matter
1590
objectively we have to contrast what is required of the prosecution and what is required of the defence. What is required of the prosecution under the Bill is the indictment and the witness statements and, really, nothing else. In other words, the defence has to interpret the indictment and the witness statements and take a view as to what the prosecution case statement would be if it had been disclosed.
What is required of the defence under Clause 5 is much more detailed. Clause 5(4) states that a defence statement is a written statement,
"setting out in general terms the nature of the accused's defence, indicating the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution".
We must remember that as the Bill is drafted "the prosecution" only means the indictment; it does not mean a full prosecution case statement. Clause 5 further states,
"setting out, in the case of each such matter, the reason why he takes issue with the prosecution".
My next comment may not be acceptable to the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, but the prime argument for these amendments is that they will enable the defence to make a better statement because the defence will know what case statement is being answered, and will know—
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think I was careful in my remarks not wholeheartedly to endorse the amendments as grouped precisely because I very much recognise the force of some of the arguments which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate put. I spoke at that stage because I wanted—if I remember how I worded it—to endorse and support the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, about my concern at the possibility that the Crown might try to have it both ways. I hope to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate at least that that concern is taken seriously by Ministers. I do not wish to dissociate myself from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; I perhaps want to have it both ways by supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and conceding—as I would if I were to speak at greater length, which is unnecessary—a great deal, and indeed agreeing with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those comments are interesting and helpful and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for them. The point he is making is valid; namely, that my amendments—I made the point myself—go further than he would perhaps wish to go in making it possible for the defence to give a fuller statement in the defence disclosure. However, even so, and even though what I think we are doing here is evening out and improving the possibilities, there are two ways of evening things out: one is drastically to limit the amount of disclosure on both sides, and the other is to increase the amount of disclosure on both sides.
It is not possible to have the very general statement of requirements of defence disclosure and such a limited statement of prosecution disclosure. That is not in the

1591
interests of justice. It may result, paradoxically, in more guilty people going free. There is certainly a possibility that it would result in the prosecution changing its case subsequently on the basis of the defence disclosure, or even building its case on the basis of the defence disclosure when it has not made up its mind in advance what the case is.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate gave figures from the Crown Prosecution Service of a potential cost of £4.5 million. That sounds like a classic case of an unknowable statistic. It must be based on assumptions, which ought to be explicit and could be queried, about the number of cases in which this would occur, the number of cases in which the information provided would be substantially in excess of that which is provided now, and the number of cases in which a case statement—which has to be prepared sometime—has not been provided at the time of the defence disclosure.
Conversely, there is no reference to the savings that might result from this provision. For example, what is the likely bill for legal aid for helping the defence to make a disclosure? It is clear that defence disclosure would be more difficult if the Bill remains as drafted and the amendments are not accepted. That in turn must have a cost. Again, what is the cost of delay as a result of the defence having to invent, reconstruct or construct for the first time a prosecution case statement in order to create a defence case statement?
No, my Lords, the two are not properly matched. A defence case statement is required in response to a prosecution disclosure which does not include a case statement. That cannot be right. The wording of the amendments is not such that I wish to test the opinion of the House on them, but this is a matter of great importance and is one of the half dozen most important matters to which we shall have to return at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 32, leave out first ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is a purely technical amendment. Clause 5(2)(b) refers to a notice of transfer given under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 in cases of serious and complex fraud. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the Criminal Justice Act 1987 so that Section 4 deals with cases of serious or complex fraud. The amendment simply ensures that the wording of Clause 5(2)(b) is consistent with that change. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("or").
Page 3, line 39, at end insert (", or
(d) section 1(2)(c) applies and the prosecutor has served on the accused a copy of the indictment and a copy of the set of documents containing the evidence which is the basis of the charge.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 40, at end insert ("unless in the opinion of the court it is not in the interests of justice for him to do so.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment was tabled at Committee stage. All those who spoke in relation to it, with the exception of the noble Baroness the Minister, spoke in support of it. As I recall, they spoke from various sides of the Chamber and included four noble Lords who are either legal practitioners or former practitioners and one practising member of the judiciary.
The noble Baroness undertook to read the debate and consider all that had been said. I understand that she has written to me. In the past 20 minutes I have been shown a letter addressed "Dear Ann" which is in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, but I fear that the original has not reached me. However, I have had an opportunity to read the letter and I understand that the Minister's position remains unchanged. I said in Committee that if the Government did not think fit to bring forward an appropriate amendment I would feel compelled to do so today. I now do so.
The purpose of the amendment is simple. I believe that it is necessary in the interests of economy, efficiency and justice. I believe that it effects a real improvement to the Bill.
Under Clause 5(3) the accused must give a defence statement to the prosecutor. The amendment adds the words:
"unless in the opinion of the court it is not in the interests of justice for him to do so".
"Hard rules make bad law" may be a cliché, but I suggest to the House that this is a classic illustration. In most cases it will be both necessary and possible for the defence to give a statement so that the issues can be properly clarified before trial. However, in a small number of cases it will not. Perhaps I may give the House three different illustrations.
The first is the very straightforward case of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn referred in relation to another amendment. An officer sees a man break a shop window and he believes that it was a deliberate act. There are no other witnesses. He arrests the man at once, and the man claims that it was an accident. The only statements necessary or indeed available for trial will be those of the officer and possibly one from the owner of the shop about the cost of repair. There will he no undisclosed prosecution material. The issue is whether the glass was broken by accident or whether it was a deliberate act. That will be abundantly clear to all those involved in the case. If a defence statement has to be served, no purpose will he served by it. The issues are clear. It will not prompt any further disclosure. However, it will involve further expense, almost certainly to the Legal Aid Fund. In such a case a requirement would appear to he pointless.
I give a different example. The defendant is suffering from serious mental illness. The issue is whether he is fit to plead. That was an example given in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. The Crown will of course be notified of the position because the matter will have to be determined as a preliminary issue. However, if the defendant is incapable of giving lucid instructions upon which a defence statement can be based, there can surely be no purpose in such a case in requiring one from him. In such a case, it must, as a matter of good sense, be open to a judge to dispense with such a statement at the appropriate stage and not to wait until the trial is under way before he is able to decide whether there should be comment about failure to give one.
The third example is quite different. It is common to find an unrepresented defendant who is illiterate or semi-illiterate, particularly in the small simple cases which will make up the vast majority of those to which this legislation will relate. Many such people come before our courts, as anyone who sits in a magistrates' court in London, for example, will well know. In some of those cases, to require the defendant to produce a statement in writing will be to ask the impossible or near impossible of him, with all the risks of misunderstanding and mistake which are, frankly, the oxygen of miscarriages of justice. Who is to explain to that man what he must do and how he must do it, and who is to assist him? In an appropriate case of that nature, surely it ought to be open to the judge at an early stage to deal with the matter by dispensing with the statement.
I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness, to which she referred at Committee stage, and I understand mentions again in her letter that no additional stage in the disclosure process should be added by such an amendment. However, I suggest to her and those who advise her that the reality is that in such a case two stages would be removed at a stroke: first, the requirement for the defence statement; and, secondly, the secondary disclosure by the prosecution.
I believe that very few cases would be involved. Difficulties of that sort arise, but they will not be commonplace. Where they arise the matter can surely be listed before a judge by way of a simple application or indeed a mention. I believe that in many of those cases there will be agreement between both prosecution and defence that no purpose would be served by such a step.
The Bill introduces quite complex procedural rules. I believe that it is also necessary to provide a means for cutting short procedure at the appropriate stage in a case where that would be in the interests of justice. The amendment gives a judge power to do so in an appropriate case at the appropriate point. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the House as being based on plain common sense which, if it is likely to do anything, will save money rather than incur further expenditure and will be in the best interests of economy, efficiency and justice, at the end of the day producing a decent piece of working legislation. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as a signatory to the amendment perhaps I may say a few words.
I should like to indicate my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for writing to me and to others on the point. It has been helpful. However, if I may say so, it is profoundly unhelpful to receive a letter at ten past four this afternoon, which is the position so far as I am concerned. Only by chance did I receive the noble Baroness's letter. But if one is to have letters from Ministers, it is obviously highly desirable that one should have a reasonable amount of time to consider the issues, particularly as they are fairly complex.
During the last debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may recall that I asked three questions, one of which has been touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. First, what would he the position if the defendant were not legally represented? Who was going to draw the attention of the accused to his obligations under the statute on the production of a defence statement? Who had the obligation of informing the unrepresented defendant of his precise responsibilities?
In the letter which I received from the noble Baroness, she states:
"We quite agree that the accused must not be put in the position of not producing a defence statement because no-one told him he had to produce one".
I am glad that the noble Baroness has made the position clear. Earlier in the same paragraph she said:
"We are currently considering various options for doing this, such as setting out the requirements imposed by the Bill in the covering letter which the prosecution will send when it makes primary prosecution disclosure, or by way of a notice from the court when proceedings are transferred for trial. If the accused was unrepresented, the information would be served on him personally".
So far, so good, my Lords. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out—indeed I pointed it out on the last occasion that we discussed the matter—a substantial proportion of people in prison are either semi-literate or illiterate. If they are held in a grossly overcrowded prison, as many are, who in that prison will have the responsibility of explaining his responsibilities to the unrepresented defendant? Who will help him draft his defence statement? Will some specific officer of a clear rank in a prison, such as assistant governor, have that responsibility? We deserve specific answers to the questions; otherwise a man's defence could be gravely prejudiced. As the noble Baroness pointed out, I am sure that there is no desire on the part of the Government to take action which would lead to that unhappy result.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that in prisons at present, grossly overcrowded as they are, with cuts being made in numbers of staff—uniformed, probation officers and education officers: exactly the people who might help unrepresented people to prepare some form of defence statement—it is necessary to have some clear guarantee from the Government on the action

1595
that they will take to ensure that the unrepresented defendant has access to advice from people who are literate and capable of giving him that advice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment for all the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. However, there is another aspect, upon which she touched. I had a client not long ago who threw her child off a bridge into the Thames. She was charged with murder. Her defence was insanity, which the jury at the Old Bailey accepted. How could she make a defence statement?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, perhaps I may put the matter into the framework of the practicalities. The noble Baroness who will reply might like to give a little guidance to the House as to how the provision will work.
It appears to me that the situation as proposed in the amendment before us in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will happen anyway. At present when cases are committed in the Crown Court—they will be transferred when the arrangements are made—a date is given for a plea in directions hearings six weeks later. The objective of the exercise is that the judiciary should have hands-on handling of these cases—as has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the civil side—to try to get the cases to trial quickly. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, agrees that that is desirable in the criminal field too.
If the plea in directions hearing is reached, and Clause 5(3) has not been complied with, what will happen in practice? The judge will have the case called on. It will be abundantly plain that there is not a defence statement. After a little discussion between parties, it will also become clear that the prosecution knows perfectly well what the defence is in the sort of case to which the noble Baroness referred. Will the judge then be debarred from giving the listing officer an opportunity to provide a date merely because there is no defence statement?
Let us suppose that the judge does not require a defence statement to be given. Will that matter be judicially reviewable? It seems to me that that will be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In practice the judge carrying out the plea in directions hearing will say, effectively, that the matter is ready for trial.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness says. It may be easier to put the provision in the Bill. I am a little concerned that there may be some risk if one does not have a little relaxation in the terminology on the face of the statute. But in practice I believe that it will happen anyway.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is an important amendment and, not for the first time if I may say so, the House should be extremely grateful for the infonned view of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
If we step back from the particular problem and inquire how the criminal justice system works, it can only work efficiently and effectively in this country if
1596
one gives informed discretion to the judge either of trial or of the preparatory hearing. He is given no informed opportunity to exercise his discretion as the Bill now stands. The amendment is a workmanlike amendment which gives the judge a sensible discretion to be exercised judicially.
The problem of the unrepresented defendant has been mentioned already. However, those defendants fall into two categories: those who have never been represented; and those who become unrepresented at a late stage, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for underhand and devious ones. The illiterate defendant, the defendant of modest intelligence, will not be able to cope with that obligation.
Perhaps I may deal with one matter which has not so far been referred to. The defence statement in Clause 5(5) deals with and contemplates the service of an alibi statement. It requires the furnishing of particulars of names and addresses of witnesses. It is notorious these days that witnesses are frequently intimidated. Why, in an appropriate case, if the judge is sensibly satisfied that a defence statement is simply not appropriate should he not be able to say so at the earliest possible stage? If we are to rely on the preparatory hearing as a device of some degree of practical utility, why cannot the judge waive the requirement if he thinks it appropriate to do so?
If I may say so without being unduly harsh, and as is suggested in the letter I received this afternoon dated 31st January, it is idle to suggest that in due time, at some further point in the distant future, a judge may well direct a jury not to draw adverse inferences. Surely the defendant, whether represented or not, wants a degree of certainty about the stance which he may legitimately adopt. If at an early stage the judge directs that the defence statement is not required or necessary in the interests of justice, why on earth should not the judge have that judicial power so to direct and determine?
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, it is plain from what has been said that there will be cases where the defence cannot comply, or cannot reasonably be expected to comply, with the requirement. However, the court has no power to dispense with it. All that is proposed is that at trial the judge can say to the jury or the magistrate can direct himself, "I am not going to draw an unfavourable inference" or "You, the jury, should not draw an unfavourable inference from that because this defendant could not be expected to do it."
Two things flow from that. Why on earth should the unfortunate defendant be left in a situation of hoping that the judge will be able to say that? Secondly, do the Government really want a situation where judges say to juries, "Members of the jury, this defendant is in default because he did not give a defence statement. It was totally ridiculous to expect him to do so, but under this silly Act I have in front of me I couldn't dispense with it. I had to tell him that he had to do it. But I now tell you that you are not to draw any inference because it

1597
was ridiculous to expect it." Do the Government really want their legislation described in such terms to juries in courts?
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I have not been privy to the letter which some Members received at a late stage this afternoon. From what I gather I perceive that it may well be the Government's concern—a reasonable one in principle—that to accept the amendment might lead to unnecessary delay or expense at some stage of the procedure leading up to trial. But, as others have said, it is a purely practical matter. I cannot for the life of me see that in this case there is such a risk. I do not understand how, if the amendment were accepted, the new regime could be exploited by an unscrupulous defence, to the disadvantage of the interests of justice.
As has also been said and as was very much a theme of the Royal Commission report, we assume that judges could and should take a more hands-on view of the conduct of cases than has perhaps happened in the past. Then the tradition of not descending into the arena was part of the judicial sub-culture, if I may put it that way.
However, we have only to envisage the kind of situation, of which examples have been given by practitioners, to appreciate that it will only be a small minority of cases. In that minority it will be obvious to prosecution, defence and court alike that the court will have no possible incentive to dispense with the defence statement unless the case for dispensing with it is obvious. It would fetter the judge by requiring him, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, to say nothing at the preliminary stage where an intervention from the court would be most efficacious, only to rubbish the Act at the end of the procedure to ensure that the jury did not do the wrong thing. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government should object to the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I offer my profuse apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I regard it as a serious discourtesy that a letter was received by other people which was addressed to her personally. Secondly, it was my intention when I signed it that it should be, as it was, sent by hand yesterday morning, not only to the noble Baroness but to all other recipients. Why it did not arrive I do not know; I shall make it my business to find out. I apologise to all concerned, but particularly to the noble Baroness. She has had the embarrassment of knowing that other people sitting in the Chamber had the letter I addressed to her.
The amendment would provide that the accused did not need to give a defence statement if the court believed that it was not in the interests of justice for him or her to do so. We debated this amendment in Committee. I have reflected on the points made but I am afraid that I still see some drawbacks with the proposal.
First, there are good reasons for requiring defence disclosure and secondary prosecution disclosure as well as primary prosecution disclosure in Crown Court cases. It is meant to ensure so far as possible that the issues in dispute are narrowed and identified before the trial starts
1598
so that the trial itself may be conducted more efficiently. Also, if the accused does not disclose his defence in a defence statement, it will not be possible for the prosecutor to assess whether he has any additional undisclosed material which might assist that defence. The advantages of formalising the defence in a defence statement apply across the range of Crown Court cases.
Secondly, the amendment removes one set of procedural requirements only to create another. It would be necessary to devise a procedure for applications to a court for an exemption and for the consideration of the application by the court to take place at some point after primary prosecution disclosure. To enable the court to form a view on whether it was in the interests of justice to require a defence statement, the accused would need to set out the circumstances of the case in sufficient detail and the prosecutor would have to be able to make representations about the application. Disputes would need to be resolved at a hearing. It would add to court business as a whole and slow down the delivery of justice.
In the cases where the noble Baroness thinks an exemption might be justified it would be simpler for the accused simply not to make a defence statement at all. The only direct sanction for such failure is that it would be open to the prosecutor to seek leave to comment on this at trial under Clause 10. But Clause 10(3) provides that the court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper in deciding whether the accused is guilty. If there is a good reason for the failure to provide a defence statement—and I have heard some good reasons during the course of discussions on the amendment—the court would decide that the only proper inference to be drawn is that the accused was justified in not providing a defence statement. It will depend on the circumstances of the case to make that judgment.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked—he reminded us of it today—who would draw the attention of the accused to the requirement to produce a defence statement if he were unrepresented and tell him what his responsibilities were. We are currently considering various options for doing that, such as setting out the requirements imposed by the Bill in the covering letter which the prosecution will send when it makes primary prosecution disclosure or by way of a notice from the court when proceedings are transferred for trial. If the accused were unrepresented, the information would be served on him personally. We agree that the accused must not be put in the position of not producing a defence statement simply because no one told him that he had to produce one.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked who would tell a semi-illiterate defendant what he must do to comply with the Bill. First, I cannot say exactly who, in prison, for example, would tell a prisoner what he must do to comply. It is a practical and detailed point which is important. Before the proposals are implemented, we shall address the particular point. I repeat that we are anxious to ensure that the accused knows what the responsibilities are and what is expected of him.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. As she realises,

1599
we shall probably return to this matter at Third Reading. I suspect so, although it is in the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I urge the Minister to be in a position then to answer these questions. A number of us will he very concerned if the Government are not in a position to answer them when we return to the matter in two or three weeks' time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall certainly bring as much information as I have available to me to bear on our proceedings at Third Reading. Noble Lords need to consider how this amendment would work without the procedures I spelt out that would need to be put in place in order for an application to be made not to make a defence statement. Without such further procedures, how do they see the amendment working?
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is right: the absence of a defence statement will not prevent a case from being listed before a hearing. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to alibi defences. The provision in the Bill builds on a long-standing requirement that serves a useful purpose in enabling the prosecution to verify an alibi before a trial.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. She dealt with the present regime of alibi statements. Is she aware that at the moment the judge has discretion to waive that requirement? If that is so and it works well, as the Minister just indicated, why is it not appropriate in the form and spirit of this amendment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the words of the amendment refer to waiving a defence statement. It is a question of the process by which that is arrived at—whether a statement is simply not made and inferences are allowed to be drawn from that or whether there is a formal application not to make a statement in which case a whole raft of procedures would need to be put in place in order to consider that. There might need to be an extra hearing. What pleases me is that there is no disagreement about the ends that we wish to have served. We are mainly talking about means to an end, and whether a statement is simply not made and the judge and/or the prosecution is allowed to ascertain during the course of the trial why a defence statement was not made.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, argued in a previous discussion that if the accused was unfit to plead there would be no point in the defence trying to produce a defence statement. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and, I believe, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, commented separately on the inability of the judge to waive the requirement to produce a defence statement. As I have just explained, it is open to the accused not to produce a defence statement at all and to rely on the court not to allow an improper inference to be drawn.
The purpose of a defence statement is to trigger secondary disclosure. Where there is no defence statement, that would not be triggered and the case could proceed to trial. To return to my earlier point, there is a great deal that brings us all together on this issue. But
1600
it is a question of means to an end. I ask the noble Baroness who moved the amendment to consider in her reply the particular process that would need to be in place if the amendment were followed—rather than following my suggestion of simply allowing the defendant not to make a statement and for inferences to be drawn from that—and to make sure, in the cases cited by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Baroness and others, that improper inferences were not drawn in those cases.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, first, I accept the apology of the noble Baroness. It is unfortunate that the letter arrived elsewhere, and not with me, but I have now had an opportunity to see it. I am very much indebted to those who spoke, on every side of the House, who have a wealth of experience in relation to this aspect of criminal procedure. The noble Baroness cannot have failed to notice that she had little support for the apparent refusal of the Government at the moment to consider an amendment along these lines.
I am anxious, particularly in view of her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—namely that the Government are looking in particular at ways of dealing with unrepresented defendants—that nothing I say now should press the Government into an entrenched position in relation to the amendment I proposed. I hope very much that, notwithstanding what the Minister just said, and notwithstanding what she wrote, she and those who advise her will go away and further consider the position.
I entirely accept what the noble Baroness said; namely, that the aim of all who spoke is to improve the legislation, to provide a practical working tool for those in the court and to enable the interests of justice to be best served. I do not think that the Minister is correct about the proposed amendment. She says that it would be necessary to devise some procedure to deal with it. That procedure is in force now in every single criminal trial. It is open at any stage before a trial for either party, or both parties, to arrange for the matter to be listed before the trial judge as an application in which both appear and both deal with the matter in hand. It may be a matter of law; it may be a matter of an alteration of bail; it may have something to do with the procedural progress of the case. That happens today; the procedure is there.
I stress that the proposal would relate to very few of the criminal cases coming before the court. In many of the cases I have in mind it would be apparent to all concerned that no purpose would be served by such a statement, and in such a case the matter could be dealt with very quickly in the usual way, as, in interlocutory matters, preliminary applications are now dealt with. It is not a question of having to devise any procedure for dealing with the consequences of the amendment.
With respect, the alternative suggested by the Minister undermines the whole purpose of the Bill; namely, to seek clarity and certainty as to the issues and proceedings before the trial in so far as that is possible. If a defendant who, for good reason, cannot make a defence statement is not to know whether he is liable to be criticised, or not until a late stage in the trial—when

1601
an application may or may not be made by the prosecution to criticise him or to ask the jury to consider drawing adverse inferences—that is undesirable, especially when the matter could have been resolved before the trial began.
I am unhappy, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, with the way she felt compelled to answer. I do not propose to test the feeling of the House; I think the noble Baroness will already have experienced the feeling in the Chamber among those who know a considerable amount about this aspect of the law. In the light of her remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I hope that, in considering the question of the unrepresented defendant, she will also feel it right to consider the other aspect of the matter, and in particular the illiterate defendant who will not be helped by the suggestion she has so far made, and the case where for good reason, no defence statement can be made.
It cannot be right in matters of this sort, where, as now happens, the trial judge is being asked to give rulings at earlier stages on more and more aspects of a trial that he should be deprived of making a commonsense order in a case where that is clearly necessary to all. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to the next stage, and I hope for some communication with the noble Baroness in the interim.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Voluntary disclosure by accused]:
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Secondary disclosure by prosecutor]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("and could be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case, or which raised or possibly raised a new issue whose existence was not apparent from the evidence the prosecution intended to use, or which held out a real, as opposed to fanciful, prospect of providing a lead on evidence which went to a relevant or new issue;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment goes with Amendments Nos. 23 and 27; indeed they all contain the same words. Those words reflect both the view of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the view of the Lord Chief Justice in R. v Keane. The amendments may not be couched in exactly the kind of wording that the parliamentary draftsman likes, but I thought it better to leave them in their pristine, original state rather than attempt to write them in parliamentary language. For example, I realise that the expression "sensible appraisal" is one that a judge may use whereas the law will probably use the word "reasonable". Still, I hope that their provenance speaks in their favour. Although these amendments were moved at Committee stage, the answers were thoroughly unsatisfactory and I thought it necessary to draw the attention of the House to them at this stage.
The Bill provides two gateways for the disclosure of material to the defence: first, material that undermines the prosecution case; and, secondly, material that the
1602
prosecution considers may assist the defence as disclosed in the initial statement of the defence. In discussion on previous amendments we on these Benches and other noble Lords have expressed the view that the balance between primary prosecution disclosure and defence disclosure is not right. On the basis of inadequate information about the prosecution the other side is required to make a full statement of the defence. It is on the basis of that case as stated by the defence that we now come to the secondary disclosure by the prosecution. We believe that the gateways for secondary disclosure are too narrow. For example, there may he material which is not directly related either to the prosecution case as prepared (though it may not necessarily have been disclosed) or to the defence statement as provided, but nevertheless it may be relevant to the defence. Indeed, in certain circumstances it may persuade the defence that it is right to plead guilty and save public money on a lengthy trial. We believe that not only is that view correct but that it is one shared by the Royal Commission and the Lord Chief Justice in the case that I have cited.
Once the defence has stated its case, particularly in the detail that is required, there is no reason why the defence should not have access to all relevant, or potentially relevant, material. If, as a result, a new defence is raised that, too, is in the interests of justice. There should not be just one opportunity for the defence to disclose its position; otherwise, it simply means that the defence will say something new at the trial which may or may not trigger an opinion from the judge to the jury about the significance of it. We believe that when the case comes to trial the position that has been provided for under the disclosure procedures, both prosecution and defence, should be the most up-to-date possible statement of the defence, and any changes should have triggered further prosecution disclosure.
I do not suggest that this will happen in more than just a small number of cases, and I do not believe that it needs to be an expensive or protracted procedure. But there are cases in which it will be necessary, and the criterion is whether the preparation for the trial in the form of defence and prosecution disclosures is accurate, up-to-date and sufficient to make possible a fair trial. To do that, we suggest that these further obligations on the prosecution are necessary and desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that as Amendment No. 22 commences with the word "and" what follow are words of limitation; that is to say, they will limit the prosecution's obligation. Subsection (2), which is very clear, fastens upon the prosecutor a precise obligation:
"The prosecutor must … disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might be reasonably expected to assist the accused's defence as disclosed by the defence statement given to the prosecutor under section 5 or 6 … ".
It is significant that Amendment No. 23, which the noble Lord suggests should be considered with Amendment No. 22, commences with the word "or", so there is no limitation there. If in Amendment No. 22 the

1603
word "and" were replaced by the word "or", the rest of that amendment would not be words of limitation but would enlarge the opportunities of the defence. Therefore, starting as it does with the word "and", I believe this amendment to be self-defeating. The question is whether, assuming that "or" were put in instead of "and", it would be really necessary.
The situation that is envisaged in subsection (2)(a) of Clause 7 is one that arises when the prosecutor has founded his position on material that has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which may reasonably he expected to assist the defence. That is a worthy object, but I am not sure that it is necessary, even if the word "or" is used instead of the word "and", to elaborate it in the way that the amendment seeks to do. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say about it. However, I doubt whether, even if they were not words of limitation, they would carry the matter much further in favour of the defence.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is the first amendment on the Bill in which my noble friend Lord Renton has intervened and in which I have been personally involved. It gives me the opportunity on behalf of the whole House to say how marvellous it is to see the noble Lord back in his place and taking part in our deliberations. I know that had he been fit and well he would have been pretty active in the Bill at an earlier stage.
The first amendment seeks to widen the test for prosecution disclosure. It seeks to expand Clause 7(2)(a) by adding a new category of material which the prosecutor is required to disclose; namely, that which can be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution to be relevant, or possibly relevant, to an issue in the case, or which raises, or possibly raises, a new issue whose existence is not apparent from the evidence that the prosecution intends to use, or which holds out a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of providing a lead on evidence which goes to a relevant or new issue.
The second amendment has the same effect as the first in relation to the description of prosecution material which the accused may apply to have disclosed under Clause 8 after secondary prosecution disclosure. The third amendment, in a similar vein, considerably widens the test for prosecution disclosure in Clause 9 under the continuing duty to disclose. If that is the intention, I must say that I do not agree with it. The test of relevance to an issue in the case is considerably wider than the tests for prosecution disclosure currently in the Bill. The prosecutor would be required to disclose considerably more material than the Bill required.
In effect, the new test is the same as the current test for prosecution disclosure, as set out by the Court of Appeal in the 1994 case of R v. Keane. It requires the prosector to disclose in effect all material relevant to an issue in the case, whether or not it has any bearing on the defence chosen by the accused. That imposes heavy burdens on the police and prosecution relating to the disclosure of material which may be completely irrelevant to the actual defence. It goes to the heart of the Bill and flies in the face of what this Bill is all about.
1604
In response to the intervention by my noble friend Lord Renton, I feel that he is absolutely right. At Committee stage I said, in response to the amendment, that as it was drafted:
"the prosecutor is not required to disclose material unless it satisfies all three elements. This is because the amendment is introduced with the word 'and' rather than 'or'. Because the existing test in (ii) is more restrictive than the new test in (iii), material which may he relevant but which does not assist the defence will not need to he disclosed. The same is true of Amendment No. 36"—
That was my reference to the number of the amendment in the Bill at that time—
"in relation to the description of prosecution material which the accused may apply to have disclosed".—[Official Report, 18/12/95; col. 1482.]
I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all I can say to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, so far as the "and/or" issue is concerned is, "It's a fair cop, guy!" Not only am I guilty in not having noticed it today but I am guilty in not having properly read the Minister's speech at Committee in which she pointed out the defect that I have now repeated. That is a pretty poor record in three amendments.
But the issue itself will not go away. I am not ashamed of having brought it forward again. In essence, the argument boils down to the fact that the Government know perfectly well what the Royal Commission recommended and know perfectly well what the Lord Chief Justice said in R v. Keane; but, for reasons of economy and of trying to cut down the workload of the prosecution, they are prepared to tighten the restriction and limit the obligations on the prosecution to make secondary disclosures to the defence after the first disclosure has been made.
That is an administrative approach to justice which I find wholly deplorable. I do not even believe that it will save money. It may lead to less effective trials, more appeals and more public expenditure in the long run. The object of this disclosure procedure, the whole of it in Part I, should be that we arrive at the trial with no possibility of misunderstanding and no possibility of ambush defence or ambush prosecution; and we arrive at the trial able to give a jury or magistrates the opportunity to come to a conclusion without being confused by issues of law which could have been resolved before the matter came to court or by issues on the admissibility of evidence or indeed on the nature of the evidence. The trial is the occasion on which such matters are put before the magistrates, a judge or a jury and if it is done so inadequately because disclosure has been inadequate, the trial will be the worse.
I am sorry to have had to say that. I am not opposed in any way to trying to limit public expenditure. But I simply do not believe that the Bill as drafted will produce that result. Having said that, in view of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Application by accused for disclosure]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 20, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 28 and 29. I have, perhaps wrongly, already referred to the subject matter of those amendments in discussion on previous amendments. Again, this amendment is part of the argument that what comes before the court should be the best possible case to enable the court to reach a just conclusion, convicting the guilty and not convicting the innocent. These amendments seek to ensure that there is the possibility of subsequent defence statements which would in turn trigger secondary disclosure by the prosecution.
The object is not at all to enable the defence to wriggle around and provide many alternative defences. If it were trying to do that in order to obtain more information from the prosecution, it would very rapidly become evident. The attempt to do so by defence statements would be discredited and a judge could be asked to rule on the matter. Surely, there must be a possibility, because there is secondary disclosure, that the secondary disclosure by the prosecution will in turn lead the defence quite properly to think of arguments which had not otherwise been put and to make perfectly proper changes to the nature of the defence.
In the same terms and in the same spirit in which I moved the previous amendments, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, as your Lordships will appreciate, these amendments to Clauses 8 and 9 remove a specific reference to the defence statement given under Clauses 5 or 6 and replace it with a reference to any defence statement given to the prosecutor. The effect would be that the prosecutor would be under a duty to disclose material which might reasonably be expected to assist the defence in any defence statement, whenever produced, and that duty, which would keep on recurring as new defence statements were produced, would continue until the end of the trial.
When considering the effect of the proposed amendments, it is important for your Lordships to bear in mind the provisions of Clause 9(2), which place upon the prosecutor a duty to keep under review the question whether at any given time there is prosecuting material which might undermine his case. That is a duty which goes right through until the accused is acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case.
In my submission, those effects would have very undesirable consequences. They would encourage accused persons to structure their original defence statement in not so full a manner as they might otherwise do. If they had a right to come forward with a second or third defence statement, they would, so to speak, test the water by putting in a defence statement arid seeing what secondary prosecution disclosure evidence that produced. They might then decide to amend their original defence in a subsequent statement
1606
or indeed decide to put forward a completely different defence with an inconsistent effect. It is certainly true, as Clause 10 makes clear, that such a change of tack might be open to be commented upon. Nevertheless, that process would continue, with a consequent burden on the prosecution, but, more importantly, a consequent delay in getting the trial under way.
Importance is placed upon, and reference made to, the continuing obligations under Clause 9, both in relation to the validity of the prosecution case and, under Clause 9(5), the duty to keep the defence case under review to see whether any further material requires to be disclosed. However, in my view it is unnecessary for the amendments to be tabled. The objective may be understandable and, to some extent, commendable; but the effects are undesirable. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that robustly worded reply. The Lord Advocate is clearly convinced that the defence will abuse the process in a significant number of cases by putting forward an inadequate disclosure on the first occasion in order to "test the water" and try it out in other ways.
I should have thought that that was an extraordinarily risky procedure for the defence. I cannot imagine circumstances in which a defence lawyer—as an outsider I look around for legal confirmation—would proceed in such a way. If I were a defence lawyer, I would be wary of putting forward an inadequate defence, in turn triggering an inadequate secondary disclosure from the prosecution, in order to change that defence afterwards. I would he well aware that I may not get an opportunity to change it afterwards and that my unwillingness to use the argument in my preliminary defence disclosure at the trial may be commented on adversely by the judge.
Therefore, I do not believe that, as a matter of practicality, it will work out in the way that the noble and learned Lord says. I recognise that he has far more experience in these matters than I do. I shall consult with those who advise me, who also have more experience than I do, to see whether he is right. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Continuing duty of prosecutor to disclose]:
[Amendments Nos. 26 to 35 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
PUBLIC INTEREST: REVIEW FOR SUMMARY TRIALS
(".—(1) This section applies where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1).
(2) At any time—

(a) after a court makes an order under section 3(6), 7(5), 8(5) or 9(8), and

(b) before the accused is acquitted or convicted or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case concerned,

1607
the accused may apply to the court for a review of the question whether it is still not in the public interest to disclose material affected by its order.
(3) In such a case the court must review that question, and if it no longer believes that it is not in the public interest to disclose material to any extent—

(a) it shall so order, and

(b) it shall take such steps as are reasonable to inform the prosecutor of its order.

(4) Where the prosecutor is informed of an order made under subsection (3) he must act accordingly having regard to the provisions of this Part (unless he decides not to proceed with the case concerned).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36, I shall, with permission, speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 and 39.
The amendments arise from a point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. He argued that the constitution of a bench of magistrates often changed in the course of a summary trial, and that in those circumstances it would not be possible for a magistrates' court to comply with the duty imposed by Clause 11 to keep under review a ruling on the disclosure of sensitive material. I agree with that, although (for the reasons I gave in Committee) I do not agree with the solution he proposed; that is, to transfer from the magistrates to the clerk the responsibilities arising from Clause 11. The difficult and important decision of whether it is in the public interest to disclose sensitive material should always be taken by a judge or magistrate.
I have reflected on whether it is right in principle that a magistrates' court should be under a duty to keep a disclosure ruling under continuous review. Unlike in the Crown Court, magistrates determine questions of both law and fact. If they order that sensitive material must not be disclosed, they will have to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced at trial but in the knowledge of other material of which the accused is unaware. There is a danger of bias in those circumstances.
The High Court considered this issue last year in R. v. South Worcestershire Magistrates ex parte Liffey. It held that magistrates had a discretion to disqualify themselves from hearing the case in those circumstances, and that in some cases they should disqualify themselves, even if the trial had already started. Requiring them to keep a non-disclosure ruling under review has the effect of keeping the undisclosed material in the front of their minds and reinforcing the danger of bias.
Accordingly, we have come to the view that the right course is to exempt a magistrates' court from the duty to keep non-disclosure rulings under continuous review (with which it often cannot comply anyway). That is the effect of these amendments, which confine the duty of review in Clause 11 to cases which are to be tried in the Crown Court and insert a new clause before Clause 11 for cases which are to be tried in a magistrates' court. Apart from exempting a magistrates' court from continuously keeping under review a ruling on disclosure, the provisions in summary trials for
1608
considering applications for disclosure are to he the same as for trials on indictment. The accused will still be able to apply to the court for a review of such a ruling; and, when he does, we envisage the clerk bringing the papers to the attention of the bench constituted to try the case at the time of the application. The detailed procedure would be governed by the rules of court to be made under Clause 12.
Amendment No. 39 expands Clause 12 to refer to the provisions of the new clause to be inserted before Clause 11. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the generous way in which the Minister approached this issue. It is a difficult matter because of the nature and the constitution of the magistrates' court. The Minister's response is an improvement, but I still have two problems. I put them forward in a spirit of trying to improve the situation.
First, one still has the problem of the unrepresented defendant. An unrepresented defendant will not be equipped to consider making the application or, indeed, to be able to make the application—the first step may be the most important. I know that the Minister cannot bind the Legal Aid Board, but it may be useful for the House to be given an indication—not necessarily at this precise moment—that the Government's view is that no defendant should be unrepresented in such difficult circumstances. I stress that it is the first question that is the important one; namely, how is an unrepresented defendant to know the advantages and balances before he comes to a decision in regard to an application?
The second problem, which I put forward for the Government's consideration at a later stage, is whether or not the application for review should be made to the Crown Court. I appreciate that in Amendment No. 38, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, there is reference to the duties being laid upon a clerk or a stipendiary. I took the points made by the Minister on the last occasion in Committee and also in her letter as being points of some validity. I simply wonder whether, because the composition of the magistrates' court fluctuates and changes due to the usual difficulties we know so well, an application for review should be made to the local Crown Court. That would have a number of benefits, not least a more consistent and coherent approach to these questions.
I do not say this with any disrespect to the magistracy, for whom I have the highest regard, but these are delicate and tricky questions of law, judgment and balance. There is a serious question as to whether these decisions should always be made by the Crown Court. However, if they have to be made by the magistrates in the first instance, appeal ought to be to the Crown Court. I repeat that I am grateful for the approach adopted by the Minister on this matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, supports the amendment. In principle, I am sure that it is in the interests of justice. However, I am a little puzzled—I come to this afresh, not being present at Committee stage—as to why we must deal with the question in a purely negative way.

1609
Indeed, subsection (3) contains a double negative. I should have thought that the matter could have been expressed in a more open way, so that the court, when dealing with it, decides whether or not it is still in the public interest.
The phrase in subsection (3), "if it no longer believes" assumes that the court had earlier taken a negative decision when the court may not have done so. The court may have left the matter open.
I may be showing my ignorance over this matter but I never came across the situation when I was last in practice and therefore I am a little mystified.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have heard enough during the debate to persuade me not to press the amendment and I shall reflect on what has been said, but I add the caveat that it is without prejudice to the outcome. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, made two important points. I shall reflect on the negative nature of the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in that event I shall not move Amendment No. 38 because my noble friend Lord Williams has referred to that matter and we could make progress more effectively in the gap before the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Public interest: court to review orders]:
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Rules of court]:
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Other statutory rules as to disclosure]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 40 I shall, with permission, speak also to Amendments Nos. 115, 142 and 143, which are related to it.
These are technical amendments which amend references to the law on alibi defences in other statutes as a consequence of the repeal of the current provisions by this Bill and their replacement with new provisions linked to the scheme for defence disclosure. The amendments also ensure that the current provisions on alibi defences continue to operate in military proceedings, which are not affected by the disclosure scheme in the Bill. Parliamentary counsel has tidied up the drafting of the Bill by placing all the references to alibi defences together in one new clause at the end of the Bill. As a consequence, they need to be relocated towards the back of the repeals schedule (Schedule 3) and the other amendments seek to achieve this. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the draftsman may have tidied up the wording but he has not tidied up the situation about which I earlier complained. There is a discretion in the judge to waive the alibi notices but
1610
on a defence statement as presently advised the Government intend that there should not he. Having said that, I will say no more.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Common law rules as to disclosure]:
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 9, line 24, leave out ("or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 9, line 26, leave out ("1(2)") and insert ("1(2)(a)").
Page 9, line 26, at end insert—
("(c) the count is included in the indictment (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(b)), or
(d) the bill of indictment is preferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(2)(c)).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill will provide the Secretary of State for Transport with the power, by order, to suspend interest payments and to write off debt for the major part of the Humber Bridge debt that is owed to the Government.
The local authority-promoted Humber Bridge Acts of 1959 and 1971 established the Humber Bridge Board with powers to borrow and to construct the bridge, but there were no powers to write off debts.
In 1969 the Government formally decided that the bridge should be built and in 1971 they agreed to provide loans to finance the construction costs. The bridge did not open until 1981 because of technical problems and industrial disputes.
The cost of financing the construction of the Humber Bridge was a great deal more than the board's estimate in 1970 of £20 million. The opening debt in 1981 was £151 million.
The bridge was built to promote the regeneration of south Humberside, but unfortunately the expected economic growth did not occur. With less traffic and less toll revenue than expected, unpaid interest on loans was capitalised, and the debt rose from £151 million in 1981 to the £439 million by March 1992.

1611
In 1986 the Government undertook to write off debt which could not be recovered from tolls set at the highest realistic level. After tolls were set at their present levels in August 1989, the board made a case for government financial assistance and undertook to promote a Private Bill to index its tolls.
In July 1991 the Government undertook to legislate for powers to write off and suspend some of the debt. That promise has enabled the Government since February 1992 to meet unpaid interest by annual grants of £40 million under the Appropriation Acts. That temporary expedient halted the increase in the debt, and even slightly reduced it.
We wish to rid local taxpayers of Hull of the threat of having to pay over £200 a year each to meet the current deficits, but we do not rule out precepting. It is the board's responsibility to decide on whether to use precepting or further to increase tolls.
In using the Bill, we will safeguard national taxpayers from any unnecessary contributions. We will encourage the bridge board to set and maintain a high but realistic level of tolls. However, we will not prejudice the Secretary of State's role, under the current legislation, of considering toll applications fairly.
How much debt will be written off, and how much will he suspended, will be negotiated with the bridge board using detailed financial projections. Some suspended debt could he reactivated in the future.
It is a great pity that this Bill is needed, but the need for its powers should be indisputable and uncontroversial. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House on this issue late at night but the Bill is important for those who live and work on both sides of the River Humber.
The campaign for a river crossing started 100 years ago and between 1850 and 1930 the idea was that there should be a rail crossing and, at some stage, a tunnel, because it was not thought that a road bridge was possible. However, a report that was commissioned by the City of Hull in 1930 stated that a road bridge was possible and the local authority and the Government agreed that a bridge should be built. The Government agreed to pay 75 per cent. of the cost of £1.7 million, which was warmly received by the citizens on both sides of the river. However, in 1931, due to the financial crisis, that proposal was put to one side. Nevertheless the campaign continued.
The first time I remember being taken by my parents across the river was in 1937. That was quite an adventure. We had to get a train from Cleethorpes to New Holland Pier along the south hank of the river, and then wait for the paddle steamer—the ferry—to come. The train journey took 45 minutes. The ferry took either 30 minutes or one hour and 30 minutes, depending on the tides, the weather, the captain and the state of the sandbanks. We did not have a car in those days, but if we had we would have to have gone round the 85 miles
1612
from Grimsby to Hull in order to go to the pantomime. This stretch of water is in some parts three miles and in other parts one mile across.
I recall that 40 years later little had changed. The same ferries were still running. They are very sturdy vessels. One of them is moored on the Thames not many yards away from this Palace. But there were two significant changes. First, the road bridge that had been talked about for 40 years was under construction, but unfortunately it would be a further four years before it was opened; and, significantly, the new east-west motorways—the M.62, the M.18 and the M.180—linking both north and south Humberside with the national motorway network, were either open or due to be opened within a year or two. They were certainly all open before the bridge was completed in 1981.
The bridge was due to be completed in 1977 but a combination of unusually poor weather conditions, subsidence on the south bank of the river, which created technical problems for its construction, and severe labour relations problems meant that it took nine years to complete rather than the projected four-and-a-half years. As a result, costs increased significantly and the debt burden grew to the figure the Minister stated—£439 million in 1992.
The Government recognised some five years ago that this enormous debt could not be paid either out of toll income or by a precept on the local taxpayers of Hull and two small neighbouring authorities. Since February 1992 help has been given to meet unpaid annual interest charges, but this Bill will enable the Government and the bridge board to agree a long-term solution to the problem.
The present level of tolls on the bridge was fixed in 1989. The board is currently proposing an increase of 32.5 per cent., which would maintain the tolls at 1989 levels. That proposal will go to a public inquiry some time this year. The increase will undoubtedly shut off traffic flow for a short time but it will still be cheaper to go over the bridge than go all the way round via Goole.
I know it is not possible for the Minister to indicate how much of the debt the Government are prepared to write off, but I would urge him not to press the bridge board to push up toll charges to meet this somewhat artificial debt burden. The bridge makes an operating surplus, which this year is estimated at £10 million. Six million vehicles use it every year. The bridge is now part of the national road network. Local people are very proud of the bridge. It is a beautiful and very fine example of British engineering, and overseas orders are won on the strength of Britain's ability to build such structures. Economic development has been influenced by the existence of the bridge. From my own personal knowledge, inward investment on the south bank has happened because of the bridge.
The new unitary authorities of North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and the City of Hull, which come into being in April this year, will continue to work together to develop an economic growth policy for the Humber estuary, with the help of the Government's Yorkshire and Humberside regional office. The Humber Bridge is an integral part of that

1613
policy and nothing should be done which makes the use of the bridge more expensive just to pay off this historical debt. I welcome the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his brief explanation of the Bill. I also thank my noble friend for his intervention. It enabled us to hear his reminiscences about his boyish peregrinations around this area. I always enjoy anecdotes because 1 have now reached my anecdotage. He argued cogently the benefits that the bridge has brought, although in financial terms there are certainly the negative factors to which the Minister alluded. However, overall, the bridge has been of benefit to the region and to Hull in particular. It has helped to reinvigorate the local economy, which is not an unimportant factor.
My noble friend also referred to the outstanding skill that was exhibited in designing the bridge and in the engineering accomplishments that went into its construction. Those may well have important spin-off effects in terms of the way in which those skills can be utilised overseas. They are certainly a tribute to British engineering techniques.
We support the Bill and we shall cause the Minister no trouble in its enactment.
7.16 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I, too, was pleased to hear about the boyhood experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin. There are no doubt important lessons for all of us to learn there.
It is not my intention to replicate the knockabout arguments that have taken place both in another place and outside Parliament on the history of the inception of the bridge. Suffice it to say, it is certainly a bridge of which we can all be proud in engineering terms, but there has been a really serious financial problem surrounding it.
The Bill is the correct vehicle to put that problem right and to put the bridge on a sound financial basis. There is a lot of work still to be done, but I believe that the passage of this important Bill will help with it. It is regrettable that we have had to bring the Bill forward but it is necessary that we do so. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order would enable Northern Ireland to enjoy for the first time the economic and environmental benefits of a natural gas industry which have been available to the rest of the United Kingdom for many years. I shall comment
1614
briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions. The purpose of the order is to provide the legislative and regulatory framework for the establishment of a downstream natural gas industry in Northern Ireland and its rapid development into a mature competitive industry. The introduction of natural gas into the Northern Ireland energy market will add to the choice of fuels and therefore increase competition. That can only lead to lower energy bills which are of vital importance both to domestic and business consumers in the Province. In addition, the use of natural gas, which is widely recognised as the greenest of the fossil fuels, will contribute to a cleaner environment.
As your Lordships will appreciate, establishing a new gas industry entirely from scratch presents a considerable challenge, particularly in the face of strong competition from other long established fuels. The draft order aims to provide a balanced framework which will facilitate and encourage the development of the new industry while providing essential consumer safeguards and ensuring high health and safety standards. The principal provisions establish a licensing regime for the conveyance, storage and supply of gas; provide for the appointment of a regulator and require the regulator and the Department of Economic Development to promote the development and maintenance of an efficient, economic and co-ordinated gas industry in Northern Ireland, and to facilitate competition; require the regulator and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland to safeguard the interests of gas consumers; and provide the Department of Economic Development with necessary health and safety powers in relation to the new industry.
The draft order broadly replicates a number of provisions contained in the Pipe-lines Act 1962 and the Gas Act 1986, as amended by the Gas Act 1995, which provide the framework for the natural gas industry in Great Britain. It also incorporates a number of amendments based on the response to the widespread public consultation which, I am pleased to say, was supportive of the proposed introduction of the order. Detailed regulatory arrangements would be contained in licences granted by the Department of Economic Development under the order.
The opportunity to develop a commercially viable natural gas industry in Northern Ireland follows the conversion of Ballylumford power station from oil to gas firing which is now taking place. An undersea pipeline has been constructed from Scotland to Northern Ireland which will meet the requirements of both the power station and a downstream industry supplying domestic, industrial and commercial consumers. Subject to the passage of the draft order, it is planned that first supplies of gas should enter the downstream market in late 1996-early 1997. Overall, the development of a natural gas industry will enhance the rapidly improving economic prospects in Northern Ireland and create hundreds of new jobs.
I am required to draw your Lordships' attention to the proposed use of the Northern Ireland civil contingency fund for the initial funding of the office of the regulator for the new gas industry. Parliamentary approval to this

1615
new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure, estimated at £190,000, will be met by repayable advances from the contingency fund. This is an important order for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th December be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the order and for the clear and helpful way she led us through a detailed and wide-ranging document. We on these Benches—both of us—welcome the order. We hope that it will go a long way towards creating a vigorous diversity of energy supply for Northern Ireland. Some unsympathetic English critics have been heard to say that the people of the Celtic countries in the United Kingdom have far too much gas already and need no further supplies. That cannot be the case in Northern Ireland.
It was pointed out that when the order was discussed by the Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in another place that to supply gas to Northern Ireland will be expensive and, in some cases, even uneconomic. The Minister's honourable friend was not especially specific in reply. That prompts me to ask whether the Minister can help by describing briefly, but a little more precisely, the proposed pricing structure, especially as it relates to the effects on the pricing of both electricity and oil. Can she explain the timescale which is likely to be planned? For example, if gas becomes available to Belfast, how long is it likely to be before it is available to Derry?
I would also welcome reassurance about the future of the Ballylumford power station. I am informed that Ballylumford supplies about 45 per cent. of Northern Ireland's electricity, and the directive covering large combustion plants would require it to close by the year 2003 unless it reduces its emissions. Is it not also the case that Ballylumford's entire output is contracted to Northern Ireland Electricity until at least the year 2010 and that the cost of the gas pipeline through to the power station will be borne by Northern Ireland Electricity and so will fall on the electricity consumers of Northern Ireland? Can the Minister say whether the volume of this activity is sufficient to make the future of Ballylumford completely secure until the end of what is predicted to be its natural life as a power station?
The question of monopoly rights and exclusivity periods has been raised in another place and elsewhere. To my mind it has not been clearly answered. Can the Minister say whether or not it is the case that British Gas is asking the Government for monopoly rights on distribution and whether or not its subsidiary, Premier Energy, is seeking agreement for "phased competition", which I take to mean no competition until Premier Energy is ready to take it on? How long is a "phase"?
There are two other, smaller points I wish to raise before my final assault on the Minister's patience. The first relates to the provisions of Article 24 of the order, which deals with the resale of gas. Will there be a
1616
penalty against any person who resells gas over and above the price set by the director? The Minister's honourable friend, dealing with this in his reply on 17th January, was less than transpicuously clear on the point. Secondly, can the Minister bring us up to date on the research being done on Beaufort's dyke? On 17th January the Minister's honourable friend said,
"a less encouraging finding is a legacy of munitions outside the authorised dump site. Current scientific opinion supports the conclusion that dumped munitions are not a significant risk to human health and the marine environment if they are left undisturbed. The survey found no direct evidence that phosphorous objects recently washed up on either the Northern Ireland or the Scottish coast came from that area".—[Official Report, Commons, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 17/1/96; col. 12.]
Phrases like "no direct evidence" do alert the sceptical spirit which is sometimes to be discerned in the minds of noble Lords on this side of your Lordships' House.
My final inquiry relates to the role of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland, as described in Articles 33 and 34 of the order. The council has been given the responsibility of representing the interests of gas consumers. It has a high reputation for producing quality work and it also enjoys a very visible public profile within Northern Ireland. So it is well placed to assume this new rôle. The reference in Article 33(2) to the power of the director-general to defray expenses incurred by the council is a necessary and, need I say, welcome feature of the order. The order will cost money: this section of it will cost money.
A critical new area of work for the council will be the handling of complaints and representations from gas consumers. Research from a number of sources has shown the importance of making it as easy as possible for consumers to make a complaint. The council must create straightaway a quality complaints procedure.
In line with the best practice of the Citizens' Charter guidelines, it will be important for the council to be seen as the single point of entry for complaints. The council would have to work together with the director and the gas suppliers in the overall task of dealing with dissatisfied customers. Clearly, it would be preferable—not least in order to avoid public confusion—for the council to be the central complaints handling organisation. This would require adequate funding. I am informed by a usually reliable source that the council has not yet been informed either by the Department of Economic Development or by the Department of Finance and Personnel about the precise details of its duties. It is still very much in the dark. I hope that enlightenment may come very soon.
The gas supplier will have sole supply rights for eight years for domestic consumers. Since world fuel prices and movements cannot be forecast that far in advance, surely it would be prudent to make some provision for a worst case scenario maybe by giving the director-general the power to intervene in exceptional circumstances. Otherwise Northern Ireland gas consumers might so easily find themselves in the same position as electricity consumers are now—paying well over the odds with no real prospect of price reductions.
An additional problem for gas consumers is that, unlike other high street goods and services, it simply is not practical to shop around for another provider. Once gas is installed in a house, it would not be an affordable option for many people to remove that gas system in favour of a system powered by a different fuel. Is any reassurance available on that point?
We have duly scrutinised the order, and those are the only small questions that we have been able to come up with. So we welcome the order as a new and powerful source of energy for Northern Ireland—though since the noble Baroness the Minister took up her post I do wonder why they need any more energy.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his scrutiny of the order and for his support of the nation at the beginning of his speech. I am not sure that I agree with his definition of "small questions". The noble Lord raised some important issues. I shall try to be rather more transparent in my replies than he suggested was the case with my honourable friend's answers in another place. However, I believe that those answers covered many of the issues raised. If, on reading Hansard, I feel that I have not properly clarified any point, I shall write to the noble Lord.
In a relatively short speech, the noble Lord touched on many issues. First, he rightly praised the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. It is a body of great strength and deservedly attracts much respect in Northern Ireland. It fights many doughty battles. I believe that, on occasions, people who have seen its chairman coming have trembled.
Once the order is in place we shall define the duties. If a need for extra funding is proved, we shall consider it seriously, as we did when we considered bringing the Coal Advisory Service within the ambit of the General Consumer Council. We do not intend to leave the consumer unprotected. I believe that by giving that responsibility to the General Consumer Council we have made a resolute commitment to the protection of the consumer. The noble Lord is absolutely right that in an area such as this, where commitment to appliances means that the option to change is not an easy one, one has to be sure that the conditions are right.
The noble Lord said, in what was perhaps a slightly throw-away line, that people in Northern Ireland are paying well over the odds already for their fuel. We are well aware of the need to work constantly on energy costs, which is why we are bringing forward the opportunity for downstream gas to be provided to Northern Ireland. We are currently looking at the allocation of £60 million for energy bills in Northern Ireland. That money is coming from the Government and is intended to help to reduce the bills of both industrial and residential consumers.
The noble Lord asked whether Ballylumford would have to close due to emission standards. Its conversion to gas will solve its emission standard problems, so closure is not an issue. The noble Lord asked how long it would he before Derry had the opportunity to avail
1618
itself of gas. The current situation is that there is an opportunity to use the old Belfast gas infrastructure. If, in due course, someone feels that it is commercially viable to take gas into the north-west of the Province, which has a fast growing economy, that is for them to decide. There is much interest in exploring the tight gas field in Fermanagh and Cavan. If that proves viable it will provide an opportunity for cheaper fuel in rural areas, which would be a great advantage.
The noble Lord had some concerns about Article 24 and asked that we consider the question of a penalty against a supplier who resells gas. The order provides for the imposition of a penalty so that the purchaser of the gas can recover from the supplier, through the courts, any excess charges plus interest. In any case, it is envisaged that resales of gas—for example, landlords supplying tenants—would he undertaken under exemptions granted by the Department of Economic Development. An exemption would require the holder to comply with any directions given by the director. Failure to comply with such directions could result in the exemption being revoked. Therefore, I believe that protection is provided.
The noble Lord rightly queried the price of gas compared with the price of other fuels in Northern Ireland. The new gas industry will be developed by the private sector and will proceed only on the basis of commercial viability. It will be necessary for gas to he able to compete with existing fuels in Northern Ireland such as coal, oil, electricity and LPG. Therefore, it will be essential for gas suppliers to supply gas as cheaply as possible in order to compete with other fuels. Perhaps, philosophically, I have more faith in market forces than any noble Lord on the Opposition Benches, but I believe that in this instance there is a fair expectation that the suppliers of established fuels will react strongly to the competition from gas. The benefit of that will he downward pressure on energy prices which will benefit the whole economy. It will improve the quality of life for domestic users and help the growth of industrial companies.
The noble Lord queried the exclusivity arrangements. The agreement reached in principle with Premier—it must be "in principle" because I am placing a draft order before the House tonight—provides for the introduction of competition in the supply to large industrial and commercial consumers; that is, to those taking more than 250,000 therms per annum three years after the introduction of gas to their area, and to all consumers no later than eight years from the operational start-up. It gives Premier the exclusive right to lay pipes in the licensed area for a period of 20 years. However, third parties would be permitted to lay transmission pipes through the licensed area to another area. We have worked hard to ensure that the provisions are attractive and bring competition into the supply of energy in Northern Ireland while ensuring that, as soon as possible, the position becomes open to other challenge. My own faith in the growth of the economy in Northern Ireland is such that I believe that we shall see that come about very quickly. We have recently seen growth in

1619
the area of combined heat and power and people now recognise the opportunity to grow in a much healthier economic climate than we have seen for many years.
The noble Lord also asked about Beaufort's dyke. Perhaps I may reassure him first as to the safety of the pipeline. The pipe-laying is completed, but it is the responsibility of the DTI to grant approval for the pipeline to be brought into use. That will be granted only if the Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that the company has met its legal obligations over the proper control of the risk. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that further government survey work in the area was announced at a press conference on 8th January in Aberdeen. I know that colleagues in other departments arc working on that. The results will be made available in due course. I believe that that will give the noble Lord some comfort because I am told by people who know more about these things than I do that one of the most dangerous actions is to touch munitions that have been lying out there for some time. It is a matter for experts.
I hope that I have answered all the questions raised. I have promised that I shall read Hansard carefully and write to the noble Lord on any points I have not covered. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Council
7.38 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the future of the British Council.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken the time to speak on this subject late on a Thursday night.
The future work of the British Council is seriously threatened by the devastating cuts to its budget that were announced in this year's public expenditure settlement. Despite repeated Government assurances of their support for the council and its work, they have imposed a 16 per cent. cut in funding which will seriously affect its capacity to operate effectively. The council plays a valuable part in British foreign policy and it would be short-sighted and damaging to Britain's global position if these cuts take place at the levels specified.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has already stated today the difficulty in which the Government have found themselves in distributing these cuts. I hope not to be antagonistic, but I believe that this debate shows that these cuts are not just to the bone but would in many cases cut the limb off.
Although many departments have faced serious cutbacks to their budgets as the Government attempt to make savings to fund tax cuts, the British Council seems to have suffered disproportionately. While the Foreign Office's funding has been cut by 8 per cent. in real terms, the British Council's grant has fallen by twice that amount. Even more severe, the council's grant-in-aid from the ODA, which has had its budget cut by 5 per cent., is to be slashed by a devastating
1620
28 per cent. So while cuts to the British Council were expected, it is the extent of these cuts that have caused shock. It is almost impossible to conceive of how the council is to undertake such reductions in its funding and continue to operate effectively and, indeed, in many areas continue to operate at all.
The cuts will probably force the British Council to implement cutbacks in many of its overseas operations as well as closing some of its country programmes altogether. However, in order to try and maintain a global presence and protect its front-line operations to the greatest extent possible the brunt of the cuts will have to be borne by its UK headquarters. The difficulty involved with this is that due to measures implemented over the past few years to improve efficiency the council's operations have little fat left to trim. The council is already on target to reduce its overheads in the UK by 30 per cent. For example, the council has recently shed 500 staff and will give up half its London headquarters this spring. In order to make the further required savings the council will be forced to axe a further estimated 500 jobs out of the remaining 1,200 jobs in the UK. A loss of nearly half of the council's British-based workforce would cripple the organisation and possibly force the closure of its Manchester joint head office. The British Council relocated to Manchester in 1992 in order to restructure. The prospect of another relocation is very harsh for those staff involved and deeply damaging to morale.
Yet assuming that the aim of cutting the council's funding is to save money for taxpayers, even this drastic solution will not, in the medium term at least, allow the necessary savings to be made. This only serves to highlight the extent to which the Government have made these cuts without any thought of their implications. The loss of such a high proportion of its staff would require both a large-scale restructuring process and the funding of redundancy packages. The council has no means of meeting these costs and would be required to look to the Foreign Office or Treasury for assistance. Such costs would, at least in the medium term, negate any potential savings that could be made. The result will therefore be very little saving at the cost of a large number of jobs and the British Council will have lost the ability to be an effective force in many of the countries in which it presently operates.
The British Council, defined as Britain's principal agency for cultural relations overseas, plays a vital role in promoting British interests abroad. It works in 109 countries to promote a wider knowledge of the UK and the English language and to encourage cultural, scientific and educational co-operation between the UK and other countries. In addition, the council also plays an important role in promoting long-term sustainable development in some of the world's poorest regions.
The link between the promotion of educational and cultural relations and political and commercial interest has long been recognised, and hence investment in public diplomacy is vital to every country's national interest. The English language, for example, is one of Britain's greatest assets that gives it a disproportionate advantage in world affairs. The British Council, through its English 2000 programme launched by the Prince of

1621
Wales, is working to ensure that English remains the dominant language for international communication into the next century.
The financial benefits of the British Council can be shown by the fact that its education and training sector, with implications of students coming to Britain, has been estimated at £7 billion a year. The recent work of the British Council in eastern Europe, I refer especially to the JICAP scheme under the management of the know-how fund, is particularly effective. I must claim an interest at this point as I am a member of the advisory board of the know-how fund. It is schemes such as these that introduce, through the British Council, people from abroad to British culture and business which, it is hoped, will lead to trade in the future. It is activities such as these that led the National Audit Office to the conclusion that arguably the British Council did more than the Foreign Office to further British interests and trade abroad. It has been estimated that the council's role in selling Britain's image abroad contributes up to £3 billion a year to exports.
The value of the British Council is obvious to all. Indeed, the Conservative Party manifesto for the present Parliament explicitly pledges to,
"promote the English language by strengthening both the British Council and the BBC World Service".
One has to ask whether that commitment has been maintained.
I have visited many offices of the British Council in Africa and the Middle East. The most interesting trip has to he to the British Council's office in Beirut. The ride to the council was in a convoy going at 60 miles an hour through stationary traffic with a member of the Lebanese Army waving a Kalashnikov out of the window. In contrast, the British Council office represented a sea of tranquillity.
Such visits illustrate the importance of the British Council. People attending the council were most impressed by the way in which it was one of the first institutions to return to Beirut. Such action makes an impact abroad and Britain's overseas standing is highlighted by the innovative work of the British Council. I hope that the Government will put forward a formula that will negate some of the worst aspects of the cuts. It is in no one's interest that the full extent of the cuts is brought about.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who has spoken with great authority on the British Council. I must begin by declaring an interest of a strictly non-pecuniary nature. I first became involved in the British Council in 1980 as a member of the three-man Seebohm Review Committee. In 1981 I was invited to join the board of the council and for the past six years I have had the honour of being its deputy chairman.
The first point I wish to make is that since those days, 15 years ago, there has scarcely been a single year in which for one reason or another it has apparently been necessary to dig up this plant by the roots to see how it is getting on. It is fair to say that on every occasion the conclusion has been that the council has been doing an
1622
excellent job as the promoter of the nation's interests abroad in the field of education, English and cultural relations.
The staff of the council at home and abroad have been extraordinarily resilient in taking these investigations in their stride. Nevertheless—and I say this as neutrally as I can—it cannot be wise for any organisation to be relentlessly subjected virtually year by year to such treatment. It is extremely expensive of management time and it is generally had for morale.
Whatever the immediate future holds for the council—and I do not wish to go into the problem of the cuts, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for I am mindful of the Addison rules—there must surely be a case for drawing a line and giving the council a period of stability—a minimum of five or six years—to enable it to continue to do its own repositioning and, more to the point, to get on with the job.
That is the first point that I should like to make. although I should perhaps add, for the avoidance of doubt, that in my period at the board, the council has always enjoyed the support of successive Secretaries of State. I recall vividly, for example, the help that the FCO gave about two years ago in a similar although not nearly so catastrophic situation. That is my second point. It is their support which is essential for the council's success.
Looking back over those 15 years, one has seen major changes. For example, in 1980 the total turnover of the council was £118 million; today it is £427 million. In 1980, 72 per cent. of our operating funds were from government; today the proportion is only 54 per cent. In the same period the number of UK-appointed staff has been reducing. Much of our external funding now comes from competitive tendering. Then, too, there have been massive changes on the ground following the end of the Cold War. The council now has 18 country operations in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In 1980 we had just six and the scale of our activities was a fraction of what it is today. All those changes have been carried out with a minimum of fuss but against an almost continuous background of investigations by wise men or committees.
Back in the 1950s there was an image pedalled of a council devoting itself exclusively to the arts—and sometimes to ultra-traditional aspects of the arts. I am sure that was never true and it is certainly not so today. If anything, the council in my view probably spends too little on its arts side and what it does do tends to be at least as contemporary as traditional—witness the prizes that its supported artists win regularly at the Venice Bienniale. Today the council is more concerned with science and with technical co-operation programmes, with third world education, the English language and the transfer of skills. In those fields it is an acknowledged world leader.
The world of cultural diplomacy is a highly competitive one. We as a nation are one of a small number of countries capable of doing it and yet we spend less per capita, or per unit of GDP, than any other major nation. Our cultural diplomacy is focused and

1623
effective; the council is admired for its professionalism; and it is done on a shoe string. It is, to say the least, frustrating, when one looks around the world, to see so many opportunities there to be exploited but going begging or, worse, being exploited by our international competitors. The work of the council may be—and indeed it is—the envy of others, but at the same time those others are mystified that we pass up those opportunities.
We have the world's best diplomats; we have the respected World Service of the BBC, and we have the British Council. Like the BBC, the council is trusted overseas because it is seen to be above politics and to be independent of government. As a result, we have the unique capacity to reach and to influence parts of foreign nations that are simply not accessible in the same way to our diplomats.
I have been tempted to speak in the past tense, but I am an optimist; indeed, one has to be. I have to believe that a way will be found to overcome the present problems. But any solution will still require some very hard-nosed decisions to be taken. One cannot continue "salami-slicing" our budgets year after year. Moreover, one cannot cut overheads year after year. One can take those things too far and one can lose that very precious thing called quality.
We may—and this would be very regrettable—have to shut down our activities in individual foreign countries (and that may be quite a number). But if it is better for the council to be excellent in fewer countries rather than less effective across the whole board, it is surely far better for Britain for the council to be in as many countries as possible. It is a modest public investment, but one which is of key importance for this country's global position in the next century.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I, too, must declare an interest as a member of the board of the British Council and as chairman of the British Council's Scottish committee. It is not a financial interest. Both noble Lords who have spoken so far—and I am sure this will apply to many who will speak afterwards—have spoken about the role of the British Council overseas. I should like very much to support that.
Over many years and in many countries, I have witnessed the work of the British Council, and it is admirable. It is nowhere short of the truth to say that the British Council reaches where other forms of political diplomacy or trade diplomacy simply do not reach. The contacts made by the council overseas, or through people who it brings to this country, create friends who last for a lifetime. One may not get immediate results from that sort of work, but the long-term dividends are great and they show up in the form of orders for British goods or contracts for British firms. Conversely of course—and, indeed, sadly—if people are not well looked after when they come to this country, one can get the opposite of friends for life.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to another aspect of the work of the council; namely, what it does in this country. That is sometimes not adequately recognised.
1624
I shall speak briefly about Scotland of which I have some experience. There is a modest British Council operation in Scotland. We have a mini office in Aberdeen, another mini office in Dundee, a slightly larger than mini office in Glasgow (where so much cultural activity takes place) and a headquarters in Edinburgh.
However, that very small operation does an enormous amount and has been playing a very valuable role in Scotland, especially over the past few years. In addition to what it does for cultural and arts promotion, both of which are very important, it helps to promote the export of Scottish education, which is rightly prized, and also helps to give a cultural edge—if one can put it that way—to Scotland's general export effort. The council looks after very significant numbers of people who come to Scotland; for example, some 800 overseas trainees at university or college level a year and about 500 senior visitors. Moreover, it runs a series of seminars on areas where Scotland has particular expertise such as keyhole surgery in Dundee or international investment in the petroleum industry.
All of those activities are of great benefit to this country. The ones that I have given as examples are of great benefit to Scotland. It is calculated that those activities bring additional income to Scotland of something like £11 million a year. Moreover, the council in Scotland has been innovative in running a project by which particularly suitable students are picked up and given attachments to Scottish firms or institutions before they go back to their own home countries. In that way, some 250 people are now spread around the world who are points of contact for British business. I shall give your Lordships one example. There was a young man who came from China, called Mr. Long Baijin, who went to Edinburgh University to take an MBA. He was then given an attachment and went back to Peking where he is now the representative in that city of Scottish Trade International. So there has been a real benefit as a result.
As my noble friend Lord Chorley said, the council has been subjected to a whole series of investigations and cuts over the past few years. It has responded magnificently to those challenges. It has slimmed itself down; it has moved a large part of its operation out of London; and it has gone out to get private support from the private sector. But there must surely be a point at which one questions, as my noble friend Lord Chorley mentioned, whether that continuing process is really in the national interest.
There is a classical Chinese story about two Chinese farmers who had fields next to each other where they grew rice. One of them thought his rice was not doing as well as his neighbour's so every evening he went out and pulled out his rice shoots just a little. For the first few weeks he was enormously pleased because his rice shoots looked good and they were bigger than those of his neighbour; but then came a period of hot, dry weather and his rice shoots shrivelled up.
I suggest it is time that we looked at our general overseas effort and the role in it that we want the British Council to play. The British Council will respond

1625
positively, I am sure, but it needs a degree of certainty over a period of years. If it does not get that, I fear that that excellent rice shoot—the British Council—could well wither to everyone's great disadvantage.
8 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity for this debate afforded by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, but if it were not for the dire financial circumstances to which noble Lords have drawn attention, one might, at first blush, have wondered why the future of the Council could possibly be in question. It is only about three years since the Conservative election manifesto pledged a "strengthening" of the British Council; only one year since the Foreign Secretary signed the memorandum reaffirming the council's role in "cultural and educational co-operation". It is only 10 months since the impressive conference, "Britain in the World", was held in Westminster, addressed by the Prince of Wales, the Prime Minister, Dr. Henry Kissinger, the Foreign Secretary, and the noble Baroness, the Minister of State, with an appropriately eminent supporting cast.
On that occasion Mr. Hurd spoke warmly of the contribution the Council makes in maintaining and enhancing Britain's reputation in the world, and he referred enthusiastically to the launch that very week of the Council's Internet link. To the Foreign Secretary and the many other speakers praising the Council's work I listened with a good deal of personal pleasure, since I have long been associated with the Council and indeed completed a stint on the Council's board only in 1991, with years of earlier service as chairman of an advisory committee. So although my interest does not fall within the Addison Rules, I have pleasure in declaring an abiding interest in a more informal sense.
In his introduction to the most recent annual report, the Council's chairman, Sir Martin Jacomb, speaks of the Council's commitment,
"to winning international respect and long-term friends for Britain through educational, technical, scientific and cultural co-operation".
Two phrases here, "international respect" and "long-term friends", are especially relevant to this debate since they call for commitment and stability—two gifts that we as a nation seem to have denied the Council right throughout its 60-something years of existence. This is in sharp contrast, as noble Lords have pointed out, to partner and competitor nations around the world, some with cultural organisations that are much older, all with cultural organisations much richer, and some with cultural organisations that are overtly modelled upon the British Council.
For whether or not it is a surprise to be debating the future of the Council in 1996, today's topic is an alarming echo of similar occasions in your Lordships' House. In December 1954, after years of severe reduction in Council funding, Lord Birdwood spoke of the Council's role in sustaining,
"values other than those of economic advantage",
of the contribution,
"which the arts and the sciences can make to life itself".
The Council, he said,
1626
"works to long-term methods and it looks for long-term results".
Yet in June 1961 the then chairman, Lord Bridges, following the policy changes triggered by the Drogheda Report, found himself having to plead with your Lordships that the Council still had an essential role even with the birth of the new Department of Technical Co-operation (later to become the ODA). In November 1969, the Duncan Report was the subject of another Lords' debate with the issues of commitment and stability again arising, with the Council now expected to do a second U-turn on Europe. Another November eight years later and this House was debating the CPRS review of which memories are still fresh, I believe, and we are fortunate today in having the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, a major force in that review, here with us to speak from the Labour Front Bench.
Finally, I might just mention the occasion in December 1979—of which memories are still greener if only because that debate occupies more than 40 columns of Hansard—when a debate was introduced by the late Lord Hatch of Lusby in terms that anticipate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, almost word for word, asking,
"Her Majesty's Government what is their future policy in regard to … the British Council in view of the cuts in public expenditure".
As it happens, I am one of those who believe that financial retrenchment and organisational restructuring can positively improve an institution's performance, and I am comfortable with metaphors about shedding fat to make you healthier, pruning a tree to produce better apples, vigorous weeding to enable surviving plants to flourish. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, indicated, none of these procedures can be repeated indefinitely without inflicting damage. I believe that the British Council has indeed incurred damage—some of it going back many decades to the smear and sneer campaign in some sections of the press which has cast a long shadow over the Council's core role in promoting our culture, a word and a concept that has had very little sympathetic resonance among the British people. There has been recurrent damage to staff morale and there has been serious erosion of that "international respect" which is stressed in Sir Martin's recent report. It cannot be to our advantage for Council representatives to be understaffed in shabby offices in shabby suburbs of a foreign capital. I recall my dismay on visiting the premises in Manila some years ago. Better to be well resourced in a few capitals (for example, the splendid building in Delhi) than ill-resourced in many, and I hope that in absorbing retrenchment in future, the Council will shun that salami principle to which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred.
One may suspect, too, that there has been damage over the past couple of decades with the switch from a purely cultural role to a partly commercial one. It is a mix that staff on the whole have managed with dexterity and often with enthusiasm, striving to set up ring fencing around the commercial activity, though not always convincingly either in the eyes of client countries or in those of the private sector British firms competing for the same contracts.
British culture—artistic, literary, scientific—is world class and the British Council, itself a world-class institution, is uniquely charged with the responsibility

1627
of promoting that culture. I hope when the Minister comes to reply to this debate we can be assured of a fresh and enduring commitment to the Council in this vitally important mission. The Minister would no doubt agree that the cultural and intellectual health of this country is closely correlated with the health of certain key institutions which at present feel seriously in need of care and attention. They include British universities, the British Academy, the British Library, and—surely not least—the British Council.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the late Lord Diplock, whose death in 1985 created the vacancy on the Appellate Committee which I so inadequately filled, was the first judge to persuade the British Council of the vital moral sustenance which was, and is, provided by judicial seminars, judicial exchanges, by talks and discussions for the benefit of those overseas, and indeed for ourselves through the exchange of ideas. He purported to preside over the Law Advisory Committee. I say "purported" because in 1980 he persuaded me to take the chairmanship of that committee on the basis that it never sat. Very soon after I had accepted that privilege, there was one of the many subsequent reorganisations of the British Council which caused the committee to sit frequently.
The generosity of the British Council in enabling judicial exchanges to occur—judges from the Far East and elsewhere coming to this country, spending a week in Cumberland Lodge, and, in London, going round the courts, and then inviting some of us over to do likewise in their country—paid enormous dividends.
The vital role of the rule of law depends upon the independence of the judiciary, and no country is looked upon as providing greater quality in that sphere than the United Kingdom. I referred to moral sustenance. To the judiciary in some countries, hard pressed by attempts at political pressure, the knowledge that there are judicial brothers, perhaps some distance away, who will support them wherever possible and who will talk to them publicly in their own countries about the characteristics which are an essential part of judicial stature is deeply encouraging.
The British Council pioneered judicial visits to central and eastern Europe on the collapse of Communism. It was the first organisation to arrange for judges to go to Poland. I led a small delegation. The Polish legal administration has developed from that point forward and gone from strength to strength. Along with the Council of Europe, the British Council caused judges to go to all the other parts of eastern Europe—Hungary, Czechoslovakia (later Slovakia), the Baltic States, among others, and Russia. That has resulted in the creation of lasting goodwill, and it would be a great sadness if that were to be prejudiced in order that some economies could be made.
There has been reference to the possibility of having to shut down overseas operations. I was sent by the British Council some 10 years ago to attend the 200th anniversary of the foundation of the Mauritian
1628
Bar. It was not appreciated by many that the Mauritian Bar was celebrating the period some 200 years ago when advocates came to the Middle Temple in order to be called to the English Bar and practised the English procedure, despite the fact that much of the law was inevitably French and subsequently even became Mauritian and French. The judiciary have consistently followed the procedure of the English judiciary.
When I went to Mauritius the British Council office had recently closed down. That was no doubt of immense satisfaction to the French, who were only too enthusiastic to recolonise Mauritius if they could. Subsequently, the British Council has reopened an office in Mauritius, which has been an enormous success. The country itself has boomed and the amount of good that the Mauritian British Council directorate has done there is outstanding.
I submit that the disproportionate cut which has been referred to is the product of pure myopia, and I hope that future adjustments will put the matter right.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord. I too extend thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for initiating the debate.
I add my halfpennyworth both as someone who has worked with organisations which are trying to improve the quality of life overseas and as someone concerned about the threat to jobs, both here and in the developing world, posed by this Government's policies.
Speaking in this debate is rather like defending motherhood: who can be against it? Few organisations provide a service as unique as that of the British Council, as we have heard. Like the BBC, it has been around for a long time and we almost take it for granted. That may very well be why it has become a target. It may, in the Treasury's view, have become a well-endowed, complacent kind of aunty with a guaranteed place by the fire.
I accept that there have been times when the council had a rather staid neo-colonial image, and I am aware that worldwide organisations which become too large can lose some of their energy and vitality. Nonetheless, with new management and technical skills, I believe that this one has come back to centre stage in recent years and is a dynamo of our educational, cultural, scientific and sometimes economic influence in the world.
Today the council is engaged in a remarkable hearts and minds campaign in 109 countries. Nearly half of its activities relate to the interchange of people. Recently it has been visible in multi-racial theatre in the new South Africa, in the re-emerging Beirut, as we have heard, and in new centres in Eastern Europe, the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. It is, of course, best known for its promotion of what it calls "British English". The council is also a catalyst for many other enterprises, including our universities and publishing houses. It is therefore a difficult programme to evaluate because of the numerous exponential effects of its work.

1629
The council's work in developing countries is especially valuable because of the almost overwhelming demand there for skills and experience. It is rightly becoming more directly involved in poverty alleviation. I know that it is promoting HIV awareness and prevention in East Africa alongside CARE International and has facilitated the ODA's work on that theme in Calcutta.
The Minister indicated earlier today how much that work is valued. Can he give an assurance that no NGO aid programmes will be affected by these cuts? The British Council was closely involved with NGOs at the Beijing World Conference on Women last year and its information services have been extended to NGOs in Africa. Through its fund for international co-operation for higher education it has set up more than 400 training links with developing countries. Many of those, like the Indo-British science and technology scheme, have a direct commercial impact which benefits both countries. Others have estimated the value of education and training in billions of pounds of contracts.
Why is it then that this paragon of Britishness which helps our overseas interests, and seems to fulfil all the Government's criteria for goodness, is under threat from the Treasury and its own foster parents, the FCO diplomatic wing and the ODA? The dreaded euphemism "restructuring", familiar to so many indebted societies the world over, is now written all over British Council documents, which show that it faces a disproportionate 28 per cent. cut in its ODA grants in real terms over the next three years. It is already undergoing a 25 per cent. cutback in its UK staff. Like the Treasury's other victims, it faces many more job losses here, some relating directly to students or programmes overseas, as we have heard. It also has to sell itself outside as never before in order to survive, just when it was already raising more of its own revenue, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and exceeding Whitehall targets for efficiency.
In a sense the council may have become the victim of its own efficiency. Its relocation to Manchester was a cost-cutting exercise which caused a lot of internal upheaval including job losses in London which were not all natural wastage. For those who moved, pay was frozen because of the loss of London allowances. Now that they have moved, and are happy in their new surroundings, they are told that the axe may fall on them again. This has been a tremendous blow to morale, whether or not the cuts actually take place, and there is a lot of despondency about the future.
It may be helpful to quote the words of a recently retired staff member who said this week, "These cuts are making a lot of the staff unhappy, as it seems that it's always the council being hit. If you want loyalty and commitment from your staff you have to give them security".
Does that not express a wider malaise in public service which the Government need to address about the survival of loyalty in a world in which departments are under threat and more and more work is contracted out, undermining the sense of continuity? I know that a lot
1630
of the contracting out is ingenious and creative, but it must not be done at the expense of public service itself which is at the heart of so much of our national life.
I should like to echo what Richard Eyre of the National Theatre said only a week ago: when a national institution is suffering, it is the nation itself which suffers. The tragedy is that the fat has all been eaten. Any further slimming campaign will have quite serious repercussions which the Government seem to ignore. I join others in urging the Minister to reconsider decisions which seem too drastic and cannot be said to have public endorsement.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am chairman of the British Council's music advisory panel; I know what it does for music all around the world. In the last century, Britain was cynically described as Das Land ohne Musik. No longer, my Lords. We have a reputation second to none. British musicians and British music are appreciated all over the world and are one of our greatest exports—a marvellous achievement. In terms of musical activity, this country fears no form of competition. New York, Vienna, Paris—none compares with London or indeed the whole of Great Britain for musical activity.
The promotion of music abroad is done on the thinnest of shoe-strings. We cannot afford to spend on the scale we would like. We often have to use very slim resources simply to eke out what is already taking place. We work with the musical impresarios of the world and sometimes we can just add an air fare to make a tour that much longer—perhaps for an orchestra, a string quartet or a solo performer to go to another country. Our resources are already as slim as they can be. I do not see how the resources for the music of Great Britain—British musicians are great cultural ambassadors—can possibly be slimmed down further.
Many noble Lords have referred to the history of cuts, retrenchments and reorganisations which have continued almost since the instigation of the British Council itself. Certainly, since 1992 the cuts and reorganisations have been drastic. Many noble Lords have been diplomatic about what they think of the cuts. I cannot find it in my heart to be that diplomatic. I note that the Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has assured the council that the cuts do not mean that the outstanding contribution it makes to the UK's overall diplomatic effort is not appreciated. That is exactly what the cuts mean to me: that that effort is not appreciated. It is the only logical conclusion I can draw.
I note the hope that the council will continue to maintain a global network and avoid significant post closures. With a cut of this size, how can the council possibly maintain a global network and avoid post closures? The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asks the Government what plans they have for the future of the British Council. I see only one logical answer that the Minister can give about the plans for the future of the British Council—to cripple it. For diplomacy, for British culture, and for Britain's reputation abroad, the cuts we are considering are nothing short of a disaster.
8.25 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, only a handful of countries worldwide have the vision and the capability to create advantage for themselves overseas by deploying a wide range of assets internationally in the areas of education, training skills, know-how, language and culture. The United Kingdom is one; Germany, France, the United States and Japan are others. Of these national efforts, our country is the worst funded, but by far the best focused.
New international competitors like Australia are arriving on the scene and capitalising on Britain's perceived weakness in its promotion of those national strengths. Our ground and our historical advantage is being taken from us.
The British Council plays a pivotal role in attracting full fee-paying overseas students to the UK. English language is a means for them to gain access to the West. The council has helped double student numbers from key international markets of the East Asia and Pacific region. These students will be tomorrow's political and business leaders.
Within the past week, 27,000 attended an exhibition in Hong Kong, and that followed successful events in mainland China. Only last week I hosted a meeting in your Lordships' House with the deputy prime minister of Uzbekistan. The United Kingdom's relations with that country are extremely cordial. The deputy prime minister has determined, together with his president to make English the second language. That is exciting news indeed. It has given relations between our countries a further real boost.
The council is also of direct importance to our export effort. I asked the Minister at Question Time today whether the DTI might become involved in funding related activities. The council is closely involved with Whitehall trade promotion activity. It is represented on the Whitehall Export Promotion Committee and the DTI's Education and Training Sector Group, and chairs the DTI's Education and Training Export Committee.
Export support activity is focused on priority market countries which are identified in close consultation with the DTI and the FCO. There is therefore considerable linkage between the departments. Will the Minister please undertake to think again when considering the next round of budget allocations?
In summary, I do not believe that this is the moment for the Government to be reducing their funding to the council. It is a central and integral part of Britain's diplomatic effort. It promotes a wide range of attributes for which this country is justly renowned and which are the envy of other nations. Those assets include the quality of our education and training institutions which are dedicated to upholding the highest possible standards. They are marketable assets which hold the key to our future prosperity. The promotion of the assets involves an appreciation of the interdependence of our overseas efforts. The British Council is an integral part of that effort.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords for my failure to be here at the beginning of the debate, due to a misunderstanding about the timing.
Perhaps I should start by declaring, in the most literal sense, my interest in and wholehearted admiration for the work of the British Council. For five years, as Permanent Under-Secretary and Head of the Diplomatic Service, I served with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, on the board of the British Council. I had already experienced, as an ambassador (three times) and in my earlier service the outstanding contribution which the British Council makes to our worldwide interests overseas.
It is as part of our global representation that, with the permission of the House, I wish briefly to address the future of the British Council this evening. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, apart from Britain only France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the United States maintain comparable combinations of diplomatic and cultural diplomacy worldwide. Because those countries exercise their cultural diplomacy in different ways, it is not easy to draw comparisons between the resources they devote to their cultural representation abroad and our own.
I think it would be a matter of regret to all of us if the financial cuts imposed on the British Council over the next three years were to force it to reduce the quality and quantity of its representation or to miss the unique opportunities which its contacts, skills and the enormous advantage of the English language provide for British interests overseas.
I think we should also be deeply concerned that the Diplomatic Service Vote is faced with even larger financial cuts of over 8 per cent. in the coming year and of more than 7 per cent. in the two succeeding years. We already maintain fewer diplomatic posts around the world than the French, Germans or Italians, not to mention the Americans or the Japanese. If the financial pressures continue on that scale, I fear that there is a real risk of severely affecting the quality and quantity of our overseas representation and therefore our political, cultural, commercial and consular interests worldwide.
The British Council and our Diplomatic Service are rightly the source of admiration and envy abroad. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the risks which their financial pressures are now posing for the future effectiveness of both institutions and for the promotion and protection of our interests worldwide.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I cannot believe that the Government will not take note of the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright, and of a most extraordinary collection of authoritative speakers with a remarkably wide variety of experience of the British Council. The widespread nature of the council's work has been explained. We heard about music from the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and about spreading the judicial ethos in Mauritius from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Everyone spoke from considerable

1633
personal experience and rammed home the message that the British Council is an essential asset of Britain which must not be diminished.
A theme common to all speeches is the acceptance that a cut now and again is inevitable or even healthy but that a succession of cuts, one after another, year after year—the salami process—will be disastrous for the British Council. I speak from experience. It is now 30 years since I was chairman of the Soviet Relations Committee of the British Council. I believe that we did a good job. We negotiated and signed the first two British summit cultural conventions. They were the first cultural conventions between any western country and the Soviet Union. We did much to penetrate the Iron Curtain and also to marginalise the fellow travelling organisations in this country which were screwing up our cultural relations.
Sometimes I wonder why the British Council does not make more of that achievement. I am not sure that the council, like its sponsor the Foreign Office, is a good Whitehall warrior. Like the Foreign Office, it believes in quiet diplomacy rather than the rough stuff. That puts a greater obligation on Parliament to ensure that the national interest is observed when the British Council's budget is considered.
In the debate we have carried out our duty to support the council. There is an overwhelming case not only for ending the salami cuts but for increasing the council's work in the outside world. I wish to put one question to the Minister. Sometimes I am worried about, for example, English teaching, which is vitally important. I feel that the British Council has arrived at a position of competition with non-governmental organisations such as International House. A remarkable statistic we heard is that the percentage of the British Council's income which comes from the Government has fallen drastically because, in such spheres as English language teaching, it makes a good profit. In the process of looking for its own commercial advantage, I sometimes feel that the council is not sufficiently co-operative with all the other organisations. Some are non profit-making, some commercial. And they are in the business of teaching English. It is in the national interest that we should expand English teaching all over the world. I hope that that is in the mind of the British Council and that it does not compete with the non-commercial and commercial English teachers who do a marvellous job in many parts of the world.
I was interested to hear that the British Council now has 18 focuses of work in the communist world. They do an amazing and wonderful job, very different from the job the council did 30 years ago. I hope that the Soviet Relations Committee is remembered by the British Council and that it still has a reputation among English-speaking Russians. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who introduced the debate in a balanced and comprehensive way. He enabled the rest of us to speak from our hearts and our experience on the subject.
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I have been delighted this evening to listen to the range of expertise in your Lordships' House which has come out in support of the British Council. There may be people with long memories here this evening who will wonder whether I can be counted as a supporter of the British Council and its work. As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, mentioned, about 20 years ago, back in the 1970s, I was a member of the CPRS team invited by the then Foreign Secretary to undertake a review of our overseas representation. The British Council was one of the subjects which we were invited to consider. At the time we were rather critical of what we saw as the lack of clarity about the council's objectives. We were also a little critical about what we saw as a lack of willingness to prioritise, either with respect to the council's functions or to the regions and countries in which it might operate.
I stand by much of our analysis, although I am a little less confident that all the recommendations that we derived from that analysis made complete sense. I certainly think that we were unfair to the council when putting forward one option; namely, that it should be abolished. However, we made many other proposals for change in respect of streamlining its operations, clarifying its objectives, incorporating some smaller agencies, and becoming more commercial in respect of some of its work. We also recommended a greater focus on the third world and the former Soviet bloc, and rather less on western Europe.
I believe that many of those recommendations were right, and in practice that is what has happened. I recently visited a number of British Council offices abroad. The British Council is now a very different organisation from the one with which I first became acquainted 20 years ago. It is highly efficient, commercially aware and, so far as I can see, cost-effective, too.
I also want to endorse what was said by other speakers about the great value of the council's work overseas, especially in the developing world, where it plays such an important role in a highly professional way in the delivery of educational aid.
Many publicly-funded bodies have been hit by the Government's heavy-handed approach to public expenditure in the last Budget. As somebody who is involved in a university, I know only too well that universities are among that group.
In spite of their manifesto commitment before the last election, the Government have hit the British Council harder than almost any other organisation. Inevitably, as other speakers made clear, that will affect the morale of people working for the council and will make huge demands on management time. I really cannot imagine what the Foreign Secretary meant when he claimed in an Answer to an oral Question in another place that the Government had protected the council's operating costs and that they had not subjected those operating costs to cuts. He claimed that this was "an indication of our good faith". It sounds to me more like an indication of Treasury doublespeak.

1635
The real facts of the matter, as other speakers made clear, are that the British Council is being cut by 16 per cent. in real terms as a result of the November Budget; and on top of that, there is serious uncertainty as to whether the ODA technical co-operation training contract with the council will be continued. If the contract is not renewed, the council's operating income will fall by a further £9 million at the beginning of the third year of the PES period. This would come on top of the 16 per cent. cut I have already mentioned in its total grant. Will the noble Lord replying for the Government tell the House the ODA's intentions with regard to the threatened contract? It would be reassuring to us all if that contract were to be renewed.
These cuts would be hard to sustain in any circumstances. In the circumstances in which the council finds itself they are quite unattainable. First, the Foreign Secretary has asked the council to maintain a global network and avoid significant post closures. Since the great majority of the council's posts overseas, particularly those in the developing world, now have only one UK-based member of staff, it is very hard to see how post closures can possibly be avoided. There is clearly not much scope for cutting staff in posts. If posts do have to be closed, the council's work will not be able to continue as before in those countries. The bilateral aid programme would certainly be affected.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the council has already made, as was mentioned by a number of speakers, huge efficiency savings. Even the Foreign Secretary acknowledged that the council is, "extremely leanly staffed", and that it has already rationalised its UK network. Yet that is apparently what he thinks will have to be cut further, since he wants the overseas side protected.
As we have heard, the council has already cut its overheads in the UK by 30 per cent. over the past three years. It is currently implementing plans to reduce its staff by 25 per cent. Will the Minister tell the House by what percentage the FCO and the ODA have reduced overheads over the past three years? Will he also tell the House by what percentage they have cut staff over the same period? If I am right in thinking that neither the ODA nor the FCO had embarked before the recent Budget on savings of anything like this scale, will he agree that it would be appropriate to protect the council from such large cuts, and to ask the FCO in particular to take a rather larger share of those cuts? I should be very happy to provide him with advice on where savings could be made in the FCO's budget. Moreover, I can tell him quite categorically that, though they may be hard to make and might even in some cases be damaging, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright, claimed, they can be made more easily and with less damage to British interests than can cuts of this scale to the British Council, which has already made such huge savings.
If the Government pursue these damaging reductions in the council's grant and the council is forced to take the axe to its UK operations, amounting to, say, one-third of the total reductions, it would mean that anything up to 500 jobs at headquarters would have to go. The council estimates that total redundancy costs
1636
will be between £20 million and £25 million. Where on earth will the council find that money? Unlike the ODA or the Foreign Office, it is apparently not eligible for the restructuring costs that go to Whitehall departments. Will the Minister ask the Treasury, or whoever is responsible for those rules, to think again? If they will not think again, I return to the point that it would be less damaging to cut staff in the FCO or perhaps in the ODA, for whom restructuring costs are available.
Finally, if the noble Lord speaking for the Government and his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary are genuine in referring to the council's outstanding contribution, to which the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, referred, they would not agree to cuts of this magnitude over such a short period and after the massive savings that have already been made. I hope the Government will think again and withdraw these crippling cuts.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, in the absence overseas of my noble friend Lady Chalker, it is my privilege to reply on behalf of the Government to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the future of the British Council. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this debate and for giving me the opportunity to discuss the work of the British Council and to make clear the Government's continuing and unequivocal support for the council.
As noble Lords have acknowledged, the council is Britain's principal agency for cultural relations abroad and has worked in support of British interests overseas for over 60 years. The British Council is an independent, non-departmental public body incorporated by Royal Charter and is registered in England as a charity. This "arm's length" relationship between the Government and the council, under which the council is seen to enjoy a measure of independence, enables the council to support our objectives in a way which it would be quite unable to do if it were a direct agent of government. This unique relationship is widely admired in other countries and is frequently used as a model for other cultural agencies.
As noble Lords will be aware, the council currently operates in 109 countries. As part of its grant-in-aid activities, it maintains over 185 libraries and information centres overseas; promotes 1400 British arts events annually; supports 50,000 visits to and from the UK each year in the fields of the arts, science and technology; and runs extensive programmes to help extend and improve the teaching of English overseas. It also promotes the use of British educational goods and services and maintains an excellent education counselling service which advises overseas students on opportunities to study in Britain. The British Council was a great help to me and my son in Australia when we were looking for tertiary education at a university in Britain. I am proud to say that my son is now in his third year at the University of Durham. I anticipate that, I hope many years from now, he will take his place in the deliberations of this House, which has been a tradition in my family for several generations.

1637
As part of its non-grant-in-aid activities the council also maintains 94 of its own English teaching centres in over 70 overseas countries, administers over 300,000 British examinations each year and helps to manage 300 overseas development projects at a total value of a quarter of a billion pounds. These activities demonstrate British excellence across a wide area and help support substantial exports of British goods and services. Even more importantly, however, the council plays an invaluable role in winning friends and influence for Britain, thus making a vital contribution to our long-term interests overseas.
Most noble Lords have questioned the wisdom of reducing the grant to the British Council. I stress that this does not reflect any lessening of the Government's commitment towards the council. However, it is not realistic to suppose that the council can be exempt from the current drive to cut costs and sharpen priorities. Noble Lords may wish to note that only just over one-half of the council's income comes from the diplomatic wing and ODA grants-in-aid. The Government welcome the great progress made by the council in maximising other sources of income, such as English language teaching and organising examinations and seminars. Aid management contracts won by the council under ODA bilateral country programmes and from other aid donors is also an important source of income. Contracts under ODA country programmes amounts to nearly £100 million of the council's turnover this year.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will clarify one point. Is it not the case that the substantial cuts in the bilateral aid programme will affect the contract income that the council has received over the past few years? Will it not be cut in future just as a result of the other cuts that have been made to the aid programme?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, while there may be cuts, our bilateral aid is specifically targeted. Those are the areas in which the British Council is of the greatest help in supporting or administering bilateral aid.
Within the bilateral programme, our country programmes are recognised for their excellence and poverty focus. They are at the heart of our aid effort, and therefore we continue to focus expenditure through them. We also seek to maintain our support for volunteers and non-governmental organisations. The funding of NGOs has risen sharply over the past five years from £65 million in 1989–90 to £185 million in 1994–95. The joint funding scheme, which is ODA's principal channel of support of the development activities of NGOs, rose from £16 million to £33 million in the same period, and a further increase in 1996–97 will take it to over £36 million. Similarly, our support to the volunteer agencies, like VSO, will be increased by over £1 million to £23.7 million in 1996–97. This means that expenditure on other aspects of bilateral aid, including grants to the British Council, will decrease.
I am pleased that some noble Lords have stressed the importance of the arts. The council plays a pivotal role in taking the best of our visual and performing arts
1638
overseas as well as promoting British literature and films. The council has also been highly successful in stretching its grant funding through sponsorship. Typically, the council now puts in only modest seed-core funding, plus its extensive expertise, to bring about major cultural events which bring us enormous good will, publicity and business opportunities. Many firms that have been involved in sponsorship have found this to be a sound investment, and I hope that others will follow suit.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred to competition. It is the Government's policy to seek competition where it is cost-effective to do so. Competition enables us to secure and demonstrate value for money. Since 1991 it has been the policy of the ODA that new education projects will normally be subject to competition. Competition is not always appropriate; for example, where the contract is too small to make tendering worthwhile, or where a consultant already has an established track record in a particular country and will be virtually certain to win at competition. Therefore, in circumstances where the council's knowledge makes it the obvious front runner it may be appointed under a waiver of competition.
Within the FCO and ODA we keep up pressure on the British Council to address any criticisms and bring greater transparency into its operations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned technical co-operation training. The present contract expires in March 1997. It is premature to suggest that it will not be renewed. Consultation is under way on the shape of arrangements thereafter, and the British Council will be kept closely informed as ODA thinking develops. As to the noble Baroness's question about savings in relation to the FCO and ODA, I do not have the figures with me as I did not expect the question. However, I will write to her.
Noble Lords have spoken most eloquently this evening about the high regard in which the council is rightly held both in this country and overseas. I am delighted to have had the opportunity this evening to join your Lordships in paying tribute to the work of the British Council and to make clear that the British Government remain fully committed to supporting it as an integral and essential part of the United Kingdom's overall diplomatic and aid effort. We recognise that the council faces a difficult time in adjusting to a lower level of government support. But the council has done exceptionally well in recent years in reducing its dependence on government grants by increasing its revenue-earning activities, expanding sponsorship and finding more cost-effective ways of doing things. We are therefore confident that the council will respond positively to the latest challenges that it faces as a result of the budget reductions.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It appears from what he has said that the Government will go through with these

1639
cuts. Can he give an indication as to a question that has been raised by many noble Lords in this debate; namely, who will pay for these redundancy packages?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the council is still considering how best to deal with the reduction in the grant-in-aid. We will discuss those proposals carefully with the council when they are received.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord asks a specific question about restructuring costs. I also put that question to the noble Lord. Before the noble Lord sits down, can he give an indication to
1640
the House as to whether the council may be awarded those restructuring costs and treated for this purpose in the same way as a Whitehall department, as surely it should be?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance tonight.
We for our part will continue to work closely with the council both at home and abroad so as to maximise our assets in the common effort to further British influence and interests overseas.
House adjourned at two minutes before nine o'clock.

  Court Jurisdiction: Review
  Court Jurisdiction: Review
  Prisoners: PPG Tests
  Prisoners: PPG Tests
  PAC: Sir Michael Partridge's Evidence
  PAC: Sir Michael Partridge's Evidence
  Scott Report: Publication Date
  Scott Report: Publication Date
  Premium Bonds: Prize Structure
  Premium Bonds: Prize Structure
  European Community Legislative Instruments
  European Community Legislative Instruments
  Pepper v. Hart Judgment: Changes to Parliamentary Practices
  Pepper v. Hart Judgment: Changes to Parliamentary Practices
  Prerogative Powers
  Prerogative Powers
  Civil Servants: Company Directorships
  Civil Servants: Company Directorships
  Phenols and Sheep Dips
  Phenols and Sheep Dips
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Bosnia: Military Deployment
  Bosnia: Military Deployment
  The "Marchioness" Inquest
  The "Marchioness" Inquest
  Health Education and Social Care Initiatives
  Health Education and Social Care Initiatives
  Cold Weather Payments
  Cold Weather Payments
  Lone Parents Receiving Benefit
  Lone Parents Receiving Benefit
  Lone Parents Ceasing to Receive Benefit
  Lone Parents Ceasing to Receive Benefit
  Absent Parents: Maintenance Collection
  Absent Parents: Maintenance Collection
  Child Support Agency: Report
  Child Support Agency: Report
  Child Support Agency: Maintenance Assessments
  Child Support Agency: Maintenance Assessments
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Nagorny Karabakh Dispute
  Nagorny Karabakh Dispute
  Caspian Sea: Pollution Control
  Caspian Sea: Pollution Control
  ODA: Funded Police Training
  ODA: Funded Police Training
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Pervomaskoye Crisis: OSCE Initiative
  Pervomaskoye Crisis: OSCE Initiative