Sitting of 18 January 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 on Thursday 25 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Deaths in Custody
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people died in official custody in 1995. [7842]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): For deaths in police custody or otherwise with the police, the provisional figure for 1995 is 52. For deaths in prison custody, the figure is 117, which includes 60 self-inflicted deaths.
    Mr. Cohen: Do not these deaths shame Britain? Are not the Government, by doing nothing about them, supplying a blue touchpaper for future riots? Is it not shameful that families cannot get to see their deceased loved ones and are denied information on how they died? Should not the Government accept the Police Complaints
    866
    Authority's recommendations that neck choke-holds should be banned, that public interest immunity—it is misused so even coroners cannot obtain information—should be reformed or changed and that there should be a public inquiry intothese deaths, which involve, especially, many young black men?
    Miss Widdecombe: In any death in police custody an inquest is held, which should bring about inquiries and satisfy the queries to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. With deaths in prison, the most serious concern is suicide. There is a suicide strategy now, which is implemented throughout the Prison Service.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend recall a report some time ago from the Select Committee on Home Affairs which investigated deaths in police custody? It was discovered, by listening to the evidence, that a large proportion of the prison population was made up of people who had already abused their bodies, which meant that their health was not the same as that of people outside. They were drug takers, drunks and tramps. It was felt unreasonable to fail to take that into consideration when examining death figures.
    Miss Widdecombe: It is true both of those who die in police custody and of those who die in prison that there is a clear link in many cases, although clearly not in all, of abuse of substances, of alcohol and of drugs. My hon. Friend is right. Before we jump to any conclusions, we should study the figures, examine the situation and investigate the causes. That produces a rather different picture from that painted by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who tabled the main question.

    Burglaries
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the change in recorded offences of burglary in London during the 12-month period to June 1995; and what comparisons he has made with the national change over the same period. [7843]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): The number of burglaries recorded for the whole of England and Wales for the year to June 1995 shows a fall of 5 per cent. compared with the previous 12 months. The statistics for the Metropolitan police district, which were affected by significant changes to the recording criteria, indicate an increase of 6 per cent. over the same period.
    Mr. Timms: I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. He has confirmed that, at a time when there was a welcome fall in the level of burglary throughout the country generally, there appears still to have been an increase in London. What proposals does he have to tackle the rise in burglary in London? Why is it that, despite the promises that there will be extra police officers, there are 400 fewer in London now than there were in 1992?
    Mr. Howard: The rise in the figures is explained by the recording criteria, as I have said. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the fact that, in the Forest Gate and Plaistow divisions of the Metropolitan

    867
    police—both areas are in his constituency—recorded burglaries fell by nearly 8 per cent. in the 12 months to October 1995 compared with the previous 12-month period. Burglary clear-ups in those divisions rose by 28 per cent. There are now 21,600 constables in the Metropolitan police, more than ever before, and 5,000 more than in 1979.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that these much-improved figures are achieved at a price and that officers on the beat increasingly have to put their lives at risk? With four assaults on West Yorkshire officers in one recent weekend, the chief constable of West Yorkshire is keen to run a trial of CS incapacitants in the centre of Leeds at the Millgarth station. Will my right hon. and learned Friend agree, as a matter of some urgency, to a trial period for incapacitants and make their use appropriate for each force?
    Mr. Howard: I made it clear some time ago that I was keen for the trials to commence. The relevant committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers is meeting today to discuss the matter, and I very much hope that it will agree to proceed with the trials.

    Probation Training
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of probation training. [7848]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): Probation officers are no longer required to hold a social work qualification. We are now working with the probation service to put in place new arrangements for their training, which my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 2 October.
    Mr. Williams: What is the Government's reaction to the debate in the other place of 5 December, in which the Government were defeated and in which 14 successive participants spoke strongly of the continuing need for a higher education professional qualification for probation officers?
    Mr. Sackville: I might well ask the hon. Gentleman what is his reaction to the debate in Committee on the same subject, which the Government won overwhelmingly and in which I made it very clear that we intended to put in place a broad-based programme of education instead of a social work degree. We believe that having only a social work qualification is a disincentive and that it does not give the probation service the broad-based education that it needs.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by changing the entry terms, we will be able to attract more mature people into the service? Most particularly, I would instance high-calibre ex-service men and women.
    Mr. Sackville: If I may, I shall agree with my hon. Friend by illustration: if someone comes along who has been in some voluntary organisation that deals with young people, or, indeed, has been in the armed services, and
    868
    the probation service says, "Yes, you look very suitable, but you now have to do a two-year social work degree," I would regard that as a waste of many talented applicants.
    Mr. Michael: Should not Conservative Members, who are among the group that might be without jobs and take advantage of this change, be declaring an interest today? Is the Home Secretary aware that probation officers deal with ever more damaged and dangerous individuals and that inadequate training will put probation officers and the public at risk? As the Home Secretary knows that Labour will support positive, constructive change in probation training, why is he afraid to put his proposals for change before the House in a statutory instrument?
    Mr. Sackville: If the hon. Gentleman wants to do something constructive and serious about this matter, he might note that, next week, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, representatives of the profession and my right hon. Friend Lady Blatch will meet to discuss it. It is certainly nothing to do with the Government that negotiations have not taken place before. I suggest that it has a great deal to do with the Opposition's attitude.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest estimate of the numbers seeking asylum in 1995. [7849]
    Miss Widdecombe: Our latest estimate of the number of asylum applications in 1995 is 43,963.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the rate of increase demonstrated by those figures were to continue, in a five-year Parliament no fewer than 300,000 people would apply for asylum in this country? Does that not demonstrate the need for the Asylum and Immigration Bill and show that it is incumbent on those who oppose the Bill to say whether they find that figure acceptable?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition have continually condemned the Bill but have not put forward a single viable alternative. In effect, they are saying that we should allow the number of applications to continue to rise, that we should not distinguish between applications, whether genuine or bogus, and that we should just ignore and run away from the problem. That is the Opposition's position. That means that they do not take seriously the worries and anxieties of the British people. They do not take seriously the plight of the genuine asylum seeker who is suffering in a clogged-up system.
    Mr. Henderson: Why will the hon. Lady not listen to Church and community leaders in Britain who on many occasions have pointed out to her the damage that they believe the Asylum and Immigration Bill will cause to race and community relations? Why will she not listen to her hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), a previous Home Office Minister, who has made it clear to her that the only proper, fair and effective way to cut the lists of people waiting is to have a more efficient system and to apply the resources necessary to achieve that?
    Miss Widdecombe: The biggest danger to race relations is the sort of alarmism stirred by the Opposition, who quite deliberately seek to exploit fear on the issue. We have now put in £37 million over three years for extra asylum caseworkers, we have decided 26,000 claims in the past 12 months—a 27 per cent. increase on the previous 12 months and double that in 1993—and the number of asylum staff has increased from 100 in 1988 to 700 now. That is the reality of putting in more resources. But unless we control the flow of bogus claims, more and more resources will be required, and that is not a sensible use of public funds. I cannot work out why, when the Leader of the Opposition talks about not wanting to tax in order to spend more, the Opposition want the Government to go on spending and spending on unfounded and undeserving cases.
    Mr. Waterson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that some 70 per cent. of asylum seekers enter Britain as students, tourists or business men? Does that not give the lie to some of the comments of Opposition Members? Does it not also suggest that most asylum seekers do not come to Britain in genuine fear of persecution but that, once here, they decide that it is quite a nice place to stay?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is clear from the small percentage of asylum seekers who are found to be in genuine need of a place of asylum—only 4 per cent. of claims and another 4 per cent. on appeal—that the vast majority of cases have no foundation. My hon. Friend is right to identify the number of people who use asylum simply to stave off removal when they have exhausted every last avenue. That is not what asylum is about, or what the Geneva convention is about. Britain has a long and honourable tradition of being a place of safety for genuine applicants. I want to help genuine applicants and that means relieving the system of the bogus ones.

    Crime
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which police force region in England and Wales there has been the lowest increase in recorded crime since 1979. [7851]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Since 1979, Merseyside has had the lowest increase in recorded crime, with 34 per cent. I congratulate Merseyside police and all other forces on their commitment in tackling crime.
    Mr. Milburn: Is it not a terrible admission that every police force area in Britain has seen record increases in crime since 1979—a doubling across the country as a whole? Is it not also the case that, even if current reductions in crime continue, it will be another 15 years before we return to the levels of 1979? Do not the Home Office figures simply prove that under this Government Britain is less safe?
    Mr. Maclean: Sensibly, I took the precaution of checking the previous Labour Government's record. The hon. Gentleman tries to pretend that crime was invented or started to rise only in 1979. Crime rose considerably under the previous Labour Government. The one thing that fell was the number of police officers. When the
    870
    Labour party left office, the police were 8,000 under strength, and they left behind a demoralised and debilitated police force. That was the task that we had to tackle when we came to office. The hon. Gentleman should also give credence to the fact that police forces throughout Britain are now getting on top of crime and that for the past two years crime has been falling, not least in Durham, which includes his constituency.
    Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend is right to point to the police service's low morale in the 1970s under the last Labour Government and to the fact that, under this Government, police numbers have risen, but is it not the case that rural parts of Britain are not experiencing the fall in crime that has occurred in inner cities? Will he ensure that, in the arrangement involving the 5,000 extra officers that the Prime Minister has promised, extra officers will be deployed in rural areas, where the need is now greatest?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, since 1979, we have recruited an extra 16,000 bobbies, and an extra 16,000 police civilians to free up more bobbies to go on the beat, but I caution him on this point: crime in rural areas is falling, as it is falling in the cities. If my hon. Friend considers the crime figures, he will find that crime is falling in rural counties, too. Crime there has risen much less than in cities. Despite what many of our constituents say, rural areas are largely low in crime, compared with some inner cities.
    In the funding formula this year, we have ensured not just that every force in the country will receive a generous increase but that every force can recruit more officers if it wishes to do so. I am sure that chief constables will want to ensure that all parts of their patch have adequate police cover.
    Mr. Straw: When the Minister referred to the last Labour Government's record compared with that of this Conservative Administration, why did he not admit that the rate of increase of crime under the Conservative Administration has been twice as fast, year by year, as under the last Labour Government? It is the worst record of any post-war Government, and of any of the 16 countries surveyed by the Home Office. Does that not show that the Conservative party can be no more trusted on law and order than it can be trusted to keep its promises on tax?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not say that, because it is simply not the case. The hon. Gentleman likes to take up his international survey, but he likes to stop at 1993. He does not like to go on to the latest figures, which show that crime in this country has been falling faster than in other European countries.
    As for the hon. Gentleman criticising our record on law and order, I go back to my point about this country's police service. He and his hon. Friends like to nitpick about the number of bobbies at present, about dozens of officers here and about 50 officers there, but the last Labour Government left us 8,000 police under strength and with a police force that was heading downhill, under a Labour Government going downhill. Our police are now 16,000 stronger. They are getting the technology, they have high-quality officers and they are beating crime, and the Opposition do not like to know it. They like to get bad news stories. That is a disgrace to the police service.
    Sir John Cope: While we are on international comparisons, is my hon. right Friend aware that there are about 18 times as many murders in Washington as there are in the Avon and Somerset police force area? Is it therefore not disgraceful that the State Department should be saying to American tourists that Bristol is not a safe city? It is a jolly sight safer than anywhere in the United States, including Washington.
    Mr. Maclean: I should like to see the statement to which my right hon. Friend refers, because it is the sort of thing that I may to wish to take up with our American friends. It is not just that Bristol and Avon are safer than Washington. Crime is falling in large parts of this country and in most police forces. Not just in Avon and Somerset but throughout this country, we have safe communities, to which we welcome all foreign tourists. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the serious homicide rate in the United States is on average 10 times higher than in the United Kingdom. No country is safer than this for our American friends to visit. They should get to the north of England and the Lake district, too.

    Uniformed Police
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Police Federation concerning the proposed increase in uniformed officers. [7582]
    Mr. Howard: I discussed the proposed increase in the number of uniformed officers with the Police Federation at the time of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement. The federation chairman described the announcement as a
    "tremendous boost for the Service."
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Federation members locally are concerned about the announcement of extra police. The Government are kidding no one but themselves if they think the fear of crime has improved. Crime is as bad now as it was, it is getting worse and ordinary people are suffering.
    Police establishment figures were cancelled two years ago, and numbers were left to the discretion of chief constables. Is that because two years ago West Yorkshire had 5,295 officers, whereas it now has only 5,120? Where are these extra police officers?
    Mr. Howard: The reason for the change is that it is what chief constables—including the chief constable of West Yorkshire—wanted. Since 1979, the number of police officers in West Yorkshire has increased by 383 and the number of civilians by 774, and West Yorkshire will receive enough funds to recruit 200 extra constables over the next three years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw those figures to his constituents' attention.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Notwithstanding the facts drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that morale among the well-led police in West Yorkshire is as high as it has been for many years? My constituents like to see uniformed police about. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to get them away from their desks and on duty?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is largely a result of that morale, or associated with it, that the last crime figures that I saw for West Yorkshire showed a 5.5 per cent. reduction over the 12 months in question: 16,000 fewer crimes had been committed in the area.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Home Secretary recall that, in the 1992 Conservative manifesto, his party promised to provide 1,000 extra police officers in that year? Does he further recall that only 771 were appointed, and is he aware that since then the number has been reduced by 1,333? That information is based on Government statistics that I was given recently in a parliamentary answer.
    What reason do the people of Greater London, Greater Manchester, Wales, Avon and Somerset, West Mercia and other areas that have experienced a reduction in the number of police officers since 1993 have to trust the Government's current promises any more than they should have trusted the broken promises of 1992?
    Mr. Howard: I do not for a moment accept the figures given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. This year alone, we expect to have an extra 400 officers across the country, and, as a result of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement, we shall have an extra 5,000 over the next three years. As for the Metropolitan police, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman specifically referred, as I said earlier this afternoon there are now 21,600 constables in the Met—more than ever before, and 5,000 more than there were in 1979.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, contrary to the misleading impression created by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), he has ensured that next year alone chief constables throughout the country will be able to create up to 1,000 new posts for bobbies on the beat?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The money has been provided, following agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I hope very much that chief constables will recruit the extra officers.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the allocation of the money announced in the Budget for closed circuit television. [7853]
    Mr. Maclean: Fifteen million pounds will be distributed in 1996–97 by means of a challenge competition. Bids for funding are to be received in the Home Office by 29 March 1996. My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to announce the results early in the summer.
    Mr. Rendel: In providing the second tranche of money for closed circuit television, will the Home Secretary give special consideration to district councils that were not given a slice of the first tranche but went ahead with their own schemes, paying for them with council tax money, and now wish to extend those schemes?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I will not give special consideration to those councils; I will give equal and fair consideration

    873
    to all councils that may be considering add-on or bolt-on schemes to complement their existing systems. I appeal to councils, police forces, local businesses and partnerships to take advantage of the wonderful technology that is now at our disposal, prepare bids and present them before the end of March. All those bids will be judged objectively and fairly, and we hope to announce the winners by early summer.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the results of CCTV in Maidstone are absolutely first-class? Will he pay tribute to the borough council for its principled refusal to allow any of the material collected on those cameras to be sold or made use of for any other purpose?
    Mr. Maclean: The Maidstone camera scheme is excellent, along with hundreds of others in the country. I agree with the council's stance; it is the Government's stance. We insist that any scheme which does not have a proper code of practice on how tapes are kept will not be given funding. I believe that the Association of Chief Police Officers has also come to that view with regard to any special film it may have of motorway incidents.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister will know that the public want their taxes to be spent on reducing crime. Why not invest considerably more in CCTV since we all know that it works? Are not many communities in Cumbria, which contains the Minister's constituency, demanding that?
    Mr. Maclean: The short answer is that we are investing considerably more. In CCTV technology alone, investment has ' gone from nothing two years ago, to £5 million last year, to £15 million in the coming year. There has also been investment in other police technology, such as the national automated fingerprint identification computer system and the Phoenix system. Investment in the police service alone has doubled in real terms since the Conservative party came to office and stands at £5.5 billion. That is investment in cutting crime and a successful police service, which is backed up by the best technology in the world.

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reintroducing corporal punishment; and if he will make a statement. [7854]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): We have no such plans. I am afraid that we are not satisfied that corporal punishment would be useful in practice.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who were previously opposed to corporal punishment, including Members of Parliament such as me, are appalled at the growing number of crimes committed against elderly people? Is he aware that, in my constituency, a residential home was recently broken into by a young thug? Not content with burgling an old lady of 90, he beat her up. Is it not time that such wicked criminals were given a taste of their own medicine? Will
    874
    my hon. Friend undertake to set up an inquiry or a commission to investigate whether corporal punishment would be a deterrent and make our streets and communities safer?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I think that we are all sickened to hear the example of gratuitous and sadistic violence to which my hon. Friend referred. I know that he will want to support the Government in their determination to curb such crime. I am sure that he will want to support the proposals that we are bringing forward in our White Paper, such as automatic life sentences for two serious examples of violent crime. It is in that way that we will be able to curb such disgraceful crimes.

    Vehicle Crime
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the level of vehicle crime (a) in England and Wales and (b) in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment countries. [7855]
    Mr. Maclean: Recorded vehicle crime fell by 9 per cent. in England and Wales in the 12 months to June 1995. The 1994 volume of criminal statistics contains international comparisons with several OECD countries and shows that in 1994, the 11 per cent. fall in recorded offences of theft of a vehicle in England and Wales was the highest of all the countries listed.
    Mr. Cox: I note and indeed welcome that reply, as I am sure will hon. Members on both sides of the House. Is the Minister not aware that there is still an enormous amount of vehicle crime in England and Wales? We see evidence of it in our newspapers day by day, be they national or local newspapers. Did the Minister see the programme on television last week about Greater Manchester, where vehicle crime is so organised that cars are stolen on order for Australia? In view of that, what kind of interlinking system is there between police authorities so that there is a greater chance of stopping this on-going increase—in not only the vandalism of motors but, especially, the stealing of them?
    Mr. Maclean: I cannot accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's comment about "this on-going increase". Car crime has been among the largest categories of crime to fall over the past two years. In the past two years, car crime has fallen by 17 per cent. That is 270,000 fewer offences. Of course we are not complacent about that. Car crime is still too high and we will continue our efforts to cut it.
    The Government's "Hyena Campaign" has been instrumental in cutting crime, as has the action taken by manufacturers and a host of police and Government initiatives. We shall continue such campaigns, which bear down on car crime.
    The hon. Gentleman must not mislead himself, and accidentally mislead the House, by suggesting that car crime is increasing—in fact, it is falling considerably.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the fall in car crime. However, as someone who had his car stolen from outside his house only the day before yesterday,

    875
    may I ask my right hon. Friend what action the motor manufacturers are taking to make the fitting of car alarms on every vehicle standard, and whether he feels that the insurance companies are offering sufficient discounts on insurance premiums for cars that are fitted in that way?
    Mr. Maclean: I met yesterday the vehicle car crime prevention group, which is a sub-committee of the National Board for Crime Prevention, and we discussed that subject. It has been in the lead in persuading manufacturers to take car crime prevention seriously. We have now persuaded our EC partners and there will be a directive on car crime, dealing particularly with the fitting of immobilisers, and other car crime prevention measures. Those measures are making a difference, and they will continue to make a difference in reducing the rate of vehicle theft. We are now turning our attention to truck theft and theft of plant. If it is helpful to my hon. Friend, I will write him a letter which sets out the full details of what we are doing and place a copy of it in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: If the Minister is not complacent about the issue of vehicle theft, will he accept that he certainly sounds as though he is? He has just had to admit that we have the highest vehicle crime rate of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Will he acknowledge that, with the exception of Italy, we have the lowest stolen vehicle recovery rate of any country in Europe, and that, in regard to commercial vehicles, we have an astronomical problem? Will he stop coming to the House and denying that Vehicle crime is a problem, and do something about it?
    Mr. Maclean: No one is denying that it is a problem. We are taking the matter very seriously indeed. I resent the hon. Gentleman and others today poring through all the crime figures, trying to find statistics from some foreign country or some nugget of information that will enable them to paint a picture of bad news for Britain. Britain has historically had a higher rate of car crime than other countries, yet I do not hear Opposition Members talking about the much higher homicide rate in other EC countries or about their much higher rate of sexual offences. The Opposition like to pick out nuggets which they can use to criticise the success of the British police.
    I would take the hon. Gentleman much more seriously if, in his question, he had mentioned that violent offences fell in this country by 2 per cent. last year, or that sexual offences, recorded rapes and overall crime fell, and that car crime also fell in the United Kingdom. We are not complacent, but we are not trying to cover up, as the hon. Gentleman is.

    Border Controls
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the European Court consideration of the border controls issue initiated by the European Parliament. [7856]
    Mr. Howard: The oral hearing of the case, originally scheduled for 3 October 1995, has been postponed at the request of the European Parliament. No new date has been set.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the case has meant the publication of three draft directives calling for total removal of border controls—details of which the Home Secretary has—and as it will mean that 18 million foreign nationals, including Algerians in France, Turks in Germany and many illegals, will have open access to the United Kingdom, would the Home Secretary, in the interests of good race relations and preserving our nation, make it abundantly clear that there is simply no way in which the Government would permit such a fundamental change to remove our border controls?
    Mr. Howard: Yes. I have made it abundantly clear in the past, and I make it abundantly clear again, that we shall resist those directives, and we shall maintain our frontier controls.

    Alcohol
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make it an offence for young people under 18 years of age to consume alcohol in public places; and if he will make a statement. [7857]
    Mr. Kirkhope: I share my hon. Friend's concern that we must do all that we can to discourage under-age drinking. My right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are considering what further steps can be taken.
    Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I point out to my hon. Friend that it is illegal for youngsters to purchase drink, it is illegal to sell them drink and it is illegal to buy drink for them? It seems ridiculous that youngsters can consume alcohol without breaking the law. Will my hon. Friend take that on board in his considerations?
    Mr. Kirkhope: We shall certainly take those matters on board in our consideration. Let me mention something that I do not believe is widely known and remind the House that in England and Wales it is a statutory requirement for schools to educate pupils about alcohol misuse. Similar guidelines exist north of the border. Education plays an enormous part in curbing under-age drinking.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that, according to the Royal College of Physicians, more than a quarter of 14-year-old boys became violent after consuming alcohol? Does he agree that under-age drinkers often make public parks and shopping areas a nightmare for respectable citizens, who at best suffer from abuse, and in some cases are threatened with violence? Will the Minister monitor the schemes that have been introduced in Liverpool and Coventry and look at some of the experiments that have been conducted in the United States to see what further measures might be introduced to combat a serious and growing problem?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that we can take on board all the advice and experience that he relates as well as being vigilant in looking for ways of curbing the problem.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent scheme that was on trial in Weymouth, where the police liaised with local television and radio stations to ask parents whether they knew where their children were on Friday and Saturday nights, when many youngsters drink alcohol in the streets? Will he consider making it an offence for an under-age person to be in possession of alcohol in the street and support such initiatives as the one that has worked so well in Weymouth?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I compliment that partnership scheme with the local television station. Hon. Members may wish to suggest similar liaisons between the police and their regional television stations. We shall certainly take that experience on board and consider taking action in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested.

    Robbery
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change there has been in incidents of robbery as reported by the police in the 12 months to June 1995 in South Yorkshire. [7858]
    Mr. Maclean: Recorded offences of robbery in South Yorkshire increased by 75 offences or 8 per cent. in the previous 12 months, although recorded crime overall fell by 2 per cent. in South Yorkshire.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the incidence of robbery in the South Yorkshire police area has increased by 553 per cent. since 1979? That increase is 150 per cent. above the national average. What will he do about it and when will he take action to tackle robberies in South Yorkshire?
    Mr. Maclean: It is rather pathetic for a Yorkshire Member of Parliament to attack his own police force. South Yorkshire police are in charge of crime in South Yorkshire. In the past year, they have been remarkably successful in reducing burglaries, vehicle crime and other crime. South Yorkshire police know that more needs to be done about robbery and it is an utter disgrace for the hon. Gentleman to come here and complain, without uttering a word of thanks for the excellent job that bobbies in South Yorkshire are doing.
    Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware that violent crimes occurs not only in South Yorkshire but in West Yorkshire. Violent crime deserves strong punishment. As my hon. Friend told the House this afternoon that corporal punishment has no effect, can he explain why in the Isle of Man it is most rare for young people to be birched more than once?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not have the figures for the Isle of Man, but, on robbery, we have seen in today's press the phenomenal success that Sir Paul Condon is having in London with his campaign against street robbery, cutting such crime by about 40 per cent. I am sure that chief
    878
    constables throughout the rest of the country will have noted that, if one tackles a problem such as burglary, one gets it down, and if one tackles robbery, one gets it down. Sir Paul's success is to be applauded and copied elsewhere.

    Prisons (Incentive Scheme)
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of the incentive scheme in prisons. [7860]
    Miss Widdecombe: Ninety-one per cent. of establishments will have implemented the scheme by 1 February.
    Mr. Greenway: Is it true that Full Sutton, near York, was the only prison in which there was any resistance to the introduction of the incentive scheme? Is it also true that those responsible for the disturbance have now been moved out and that the scheme is working well? Does my hon. Friend agree that early release from prison should be earned by good behaviour and should not be an automatic right?
    Miss Widdecombe: The simple answers are yes, yes and yes. My hon. Friend has got every question absolutely right. The earned incentive scheme is a useful tool of control for prison officers. As such, it should be welcomed on both sides of the House and, as such, it is making a real contribution to promoting good order and discipline in our prisons.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Pearson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7875]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Pearson: In view of the renewed speculation about the right hon. Gentleman's leadership, can the Prime Minister tell the House what difference to his party or the country was made by his decision to precipitate a leadership contest last year?
    The Prime Minister: We have this silly speculation almost every week in which there is a Thursday. It has been nonsense in the past and it is nonsense now.
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7876]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are more shareholders today than trade unionists? Indeed,

    879
    many trade unionists are shareholders. Is he further aware of the Labour party's cynical plans to introduce shareholding for workers? Is not that a case of attempting to justify a tired and meaningless Slogan?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about the growth in the number of shareholders and the fact that they now exceed the number of trade unionists.
    Mr. Galloway: Resign.
    The Prime Minister: Well, the trade unionists seem to have been doing that—that is one of the reasons why there are more shareholders than there are trade unionists. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is equally right about the slogans from the Labour party. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said last night:
    "It is amusing that Labour's new slogan might be a long way round to rediscovering clause 4 and common ownership."
    If the Labour party really believed in stakeholding and personal ownership, it would not have opposed every privatisation we have had—privatisations that have dramatically increased share ownership. The only stakeholders in their society would be the unions—Mr. Edmonds, Mr. Monks and their colleagues.
    Mr. Blair: Can the Prime Minister confirm that, on the latest statistics, since 1989, when the Government changes to the health service were introduced, the number of nurses has fallen by 50,000 and the number of senior managers has risen by 18,000? Is not that a mistaken set of priorities for the health service?
    The Prime Minister: The mistake is the misleading way in which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and now the right hon. Gentleman talk nonsense by distorting figures in the health service, as elsewhere. What the right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been advised about, or has chosen to ignore, is that there are more than 50,000 more nurses and 4,000 more midwives today than when the Government took office. They are providing effective health care close to where people live and work. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I take pride in the national health service and its achievements, and I very much regret that all that he and his colleagues can do is to take statistics, misuse statistics and try to run down the health service.
    Mr. Blair: We take pride in the health service—we created the health service. We just do not like it being undermined by the Conservative party. The statistics that I quoted are from the Department of Health. The Prime Minister said that an extra 50,000 nurses had been created. Will he confirm that if one takes the full-time equivalent of nursing and compares like with like, there are fewer nurses now than there were in 1979? Furthermore, has not the decline happened entirely since 1989, when the changes were introduced? Does that not show that one is the consequence of the other and that there is a mistaken set of priorities in the health service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is still distorting, and he overlooks the extra 1.5 million patients who are being treated. Patients statistics do not concern the Labour party. I will give the right hon. Gentleman a
    880
    statistic that really shows what is happening in the health service—66 per cent. of health service staff are now involved in direct patient care, up from 60 per cent. only 12 years ago. That is because we have invested directly in front-line care and that is why more patients are being treated, and treated better and more speedily than ever before. I hope that, one day, the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the improvements in the health service, congratulate the people in the health service on making the improvements and acknowledge that we have repeatedly put more funds into the health service to enable those improvements to take place.
    Mr. Blair: I notice that the Prime Minister did not dispute the statistics on nursing. If he wants an objective view, why does he not ask the doctors and nurses in the health service? Does he not understand that many people fear that money is being pumped into bureaucracy rather going to front-line nursing care, and that they are angry that the party that the Prime Minister calls a one-nation Conservative party is breaking the health service in two?
    The Prime Minister: Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman distorts and twists reality to make his political point. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept what I say, I advise him to listen to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who told the Fabian Society,
    "Labour's health policy will not look credible at the general election if we do not commit ourselves to matching the rate of growth delivered by the Conservatives."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will contemplate that. The truth is that his party has no health policy. Labour lurches from one headline to the next and from one distortion to the next. Labour downgrades and runs down the health service day after day, as it moves to the next soundbite.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why unemployment is falling is that British firms are now able to compete free from overwhelming union control? Does he further agree that that would all be thrown away under the Opposition's plans for a stakeholder society, which would simply hand power back to the unions?
    The Prime Minister: That certainly seems to be the view of the trade unions, as Mr. Monks, the general secretary of the TUC, has confirmed. He said:
    "This country needs more influential unions",
    and added that the proposals for new rights to representation at work also rest on the stakeholder idea. He is not alone. Mr. John Edmonds said:
    "I think ultimately we need changes in legislation."
    The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said:
    "Labour cannot govern without the support of the trade unions."
    Just to show that I do not always quote Opposition Back-Benchers, let me quote the deputy leader of the Labour party—who appears to be missing. He said:
    "I am at heart a trade unionist before a politician."
    And he is right. We know Labour's heart, we know who pays for the Labour party, we know who owns the Labour party and we know what the leader of the Labour party is now about.
    Mr. Ashdown: When the Prime Minister's predecessor, Mrs. Thatcher, said last week that his Government had lost touch with the hopes of ordinary people, whom does he think she was blaming?
    The Prime Minister: It hardly loses touch with ordinary people if one removes what wrecked their savings by producing the lowest inflation levels for 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment rate of any major European country, the lowest basic tax rate for 50 years, and the biggest fall in crime for more than 40 years. That is what my right hon. Friend, when Prime Minister, sought to achieve; it is what we have delivered.
    Sir Michael Grylls: When my right hon. Friend next meets his fellow Heads of Government in Europe, will he do all that he can to persuade them to make progress on liberalising the energy market within the European Union? Is not one of the Government's great successes the fact that we have created a competitive market in the UK, and would not our firms benefit from a competitive market throughout the European Union?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right. While the single market has been an enormous success, both for us and for the rest of Europe, there remain areas across Europe where it is still not operative, and my hon. Friend mentions one of them. We shall continue to press to spread the single market to that area and others.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7877]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mullin: I am sorry to see that the bastards are plotting again. The Conservative party's current difficulties are not the Prime Minister's fault. He simply has the bad luck to be Prime Minister when the bills for the Thatcher decade are coming in. May I offer him a word of advice? He should offer members of his party not a leadership election but a general election. That would shut them up.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman has some experience of leadership elections. If I remember accurately, he ran the leadership election of a losing candidate in a previous Labour party leadership election, so although I take what he says with some interest, I shall not follow it to the letter.
    Mr. Mullin: He got 49 per cent., though.
    The Prime Minister: Maybe, but it was not enough.
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7878]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Luff: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he will respect the constitutional freedoms of this country at all times and will not seek to undermine them by entering into shabby, shoddy backroom deals, like those promised by the Leader of the Opposition with the Liberal party, British Telecom and the trade unions?
    The Prime Minister: I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires without reservation.
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 January. [7879]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ainger: Has the Prime Minister seen the figures produced by the Royal College of Nursing, which show that the number of nurses qualifying each year has fallen from some 37,000 in 1983 to only 13,000 last year? The resulting staff shortages have caused a crisis in our accident and emergency and intensive care units. Do not those figures confirm that the NHS is no longer safe in Tory hands, and never was, or is the Royal College of Nursing distorting the figures?
    The Prime Minister: I will just give the hon. Gentleman the figures. There are 22,000 more doctors than there were in 1979, and 34,000 more qualified nurses. It is not the Conservative party or the Government who have cut back on the health service. The only time that that has occurred was when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office. He should recall that and bear in mind that the Conservatives have delivered increased investment to the national health service, which means better service, more front-line care, which is better and earlier, and a wider range of care.
    Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall the excitement and pride shared by millions of children, including him and me, at the Festival of Britain, part of which for me meant visiting the capital city for the first time. May I, as a non-Londoner, assure him that it is unthinkable that the millennium celebrations should be held anywhere other than in our capital city, and that the best possible place would be Greenwich?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches on a matter that may be controversial in the west midlands and elsewhere. The reality is that the decision will be taken by the Millennium Commission, independently of the Government, and it is therefore not appropriate for me to comment on particular bids or to speculate about the outcome. I am sure that many others will do so, but I will await the decision of the Millennium Commission.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Nursery Education and Grant-maintained Schools Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JANuARY—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill (First Day).
Motion relating to the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on the state of the national health service, on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 25 JANUARY—Until about 7 o'clock, completion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the Health Service Commissioners (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY 26 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 29 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Housing Bill.
I am not yet able to give definite details for Tuesday 30 January or Wednesday 31 January. One of them is likely to be Government business and the other an Opposition Day. On Thursday 1 February, I expect a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Friday 2 February will be Private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations will be debated on Tuesday. Will he confirm that those regulations could be debated at a very late hour? The House felt that it was being bounced when those regulations were originally produced, and departmental mistakes occurred. In view of those difficulties, would it not have been better to guarantee that those regulations would be debated at a more civilised hour than might happen next Tuesday?
I notice that the Leader of the House has not taken up the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport said on Monday that he would welcome a debate on rail privatisation. As Ministers have acknowledged that they have a technical ability to sell off Railtrack but no direct approval or authority from this House to do so, would it not be right to seek such approval from this House before proceeding any further? In view of the Secretary of State's comments to the effect that he would welcome such a debate, will the right hon. Gentleman provide for a debate on the privatisation of Railtrack in Government time?
Is the Leader of the House aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has taken the rare step of writing to the Cabinet Secretary expressing
884
his grave concern about the lack of distinction between the political and ministerial roles of the Secretary of State for Scotland, against the background of some recent events? Yesterday, the Scottish Office was amending its own press release because of confusion about the political content of a speech by the Secretary of State. Subsequently, a Scottish Office official was required to make an apology.
Given the sensitivity of such matters and the fact that we are in the run-up to a general election, may we have a debate on the confusion surrounding this issue—in particular, on the fact that Ministers may be abusing the rules by seeking to use civil servants for party political purposes?
Finally, the Leader of the House will remember that, last week, I raised with him the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation that five directives be debated together on the Floor of the House. Can he update us on his proposals for debating these issues, which include economic and monetary union, convergence and social protection? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept in principle that there must be proper opportunity for the views of this House to be registered before Ministers participate in intergovernmental conference discussions?
Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in reverse order. I have always made it clear that I—and the whole Government—accept the need for opportunities to be provided for Parliament's views to be expressed before European negotiations. That will continue to be our attitude. I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Lady a considered answer to the point about the five directives, to which she has once again referred.
As for the issue raised by the hon. Members for Hamilton and for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond): I am aware that the former has written to the Cabinet Secretary. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will seek to reply as quickly as he properly can.
As the hon. Lady virtually acknowledged, it is clear that what happened yesterday was a straightforward error on the part of Scottish Office civil servants. It resulted in some political material from my right hon. Friend's speech appearing in a Government press release. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear yesterday that he expects the Scottish Office information directorate to operate strictly in accordance with the appropriate guidance, and he has every confidence that it will do so; and that when, as happens very occasionally—and did happen on this occasion—a mistake occurs, it will be corrected.
There was extensive debate on Railtrack's privatisation during the passage of the primary legislation that created the powers which the Government now have to privatise Railtrack. It seems extraordinary that it should now be suggested that further parliamentary proceedings are required before the Government can proceed with what was agreed by Parliament.
The hon. Lady will recall that I responded—I hope, quite properly—to widespread pressure to make absolutely sure that there was an opportunity for a debate on the asylum regulations before they came into effect, against the background that it is, in the Government's view, urgently necessary to take action. The hon. Lady will also be aware of the need to make progress, for instance, on the Finance Bill. What I have proposed is

885
simply a way of making proper progress on important business such as the Finance Bill, while providing the opportunity that the House rightly expects to debate the asylum regulations.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on national vocational qualifications, so that I can draw to the attention of the House and the wider public the great success of a business in my constituency, Shoefayre, six of whose shop managers were today given NVQ awards by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice)? A number of other businesses in my constituency and across the country would benefit from learning about NVQs, and the training and other qualifications that they can receive. Those schemes have been sponsored by the Government, and the public should know more about them.
Mr. Newton: I congratulate the constituents of my hon. and learned Friend on their achievement, and commend his common sense in raising the matter in the way that he has.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Ministry of Agriculture appears to be adopting what I can only describe as a back-stairs procedure to introduce the implementation regulations for EU directive 95/29 on the welfare of animals in transit, which is exceedingly controversial not only in the livestock sector but among other groups such as animal welfare organisations?
The Ministry appears determined to use a method that would avoid the necessity of laying even a statutory instrument before Parliament and prevent any parliamentary discussion whatsoever of these controversial proposals. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss these important proposals?
Mr. Newton: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and will, of course, consider them myself.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have asked my right hon. Friend previously to provide time for a debate on roads and infrastructure. The Government emphasise the need for the country to be competitive, yet, unfortunately, there has been a fairly dramatic cut in infrastructure expenditure—especially in that on roads. That is causing grave concern to my constituents in all walks of life. I refer particularly to the Alderley Edge bypass, the Poynton bypass, the Disley High Lane bypass and the Manchester airport eastern relief road—the eastern link road, which is so vital to the economic success not only of my constituency but of that of surrounding constituencies.
Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, on the previous occasion that my hon. Friend understandably raised the matter, it transpired that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was within earshot, and I made the point that he would no doubt consider what my hon. Friend had said. I have no doubt that he is continuing to consider what my hon. Friend has said.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Leader of the House aware of the need for an urgent statement on the Ministry of Defence police? There are clear indications that they are to be replaced with civilian security personnel, who may or may not have adequate training. As this is likely to be an important matter of national security, would he ask Ministers not to treat this as part of a general debate, but to come to the House and make a specific statement on what is happening in relation to the Royal Ordnance factories?
Mr. Newton: As the headquarters of the MOD police has moved, in the past couple of years, to RAF Wethersfield, I had better declare some sort of interest. Part of that interest would be to draw the hon. Lady's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the important subject of the allocation of postcodes, especially as it affects many of my constituents? Is he aware that the inflexibility of management in the Royal Mail means that my constituents are obliged to have Croydon postcodes, which cause them to have higher premiums on insurance policies and other things? They want Sutton postcodes, to accord with the fact that they live in the London borough of Sutton.
Mr. Newton: I must confess that I was wholly unaware of this problem until my hon. Friend raised it. I shall therefore make no comment, but refer it to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Should we not have a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland on what responsibility he is prepared to take for the workings of his Department? Is the Leader of the House aware that many of us find it unsavoury that a civil servant should be forced to take the rap for politics being pursued at the taxpayer's expense, when every Scottish Member of Parliament knows that the Secretary of State is the person responsible for turning his Department into a Ministry of Tory propaganda?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I thought were the very reasonable comments and explanation that I gave earlier. However, I reject utterly and out of hand the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman seeks to put on events.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: May I support the request by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that more directives issued by the European Union be debated on the Floor of the House—not least because, as I understand it, they come without sanctions attached or any requirement for enforcement, which is added by our civil service and turns mountains into molehills? Financial penalties and even criminal charges are imposed upon innocent business men going about their usual everyday tasks.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's remarks in support of the hon. Member for Dewsbury's comments. Many people—particularly those hon. Members who took part in the consideration of immigration matters in

887
Committee before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—believe that the procedures for questioning and debate in Committee will prove very valuable for the House.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Starting next week, can the Government Chief Whip make regular statements informing us exactly how many temporary bodies he has in his team, and how many make the Prime Minister hear white coats flapping?
Mr. Newton: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) back into the fold.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the very important subject of religious and moral education in schools, bearing in mind the call earlier this week for a clear definition in the curriculum for teaching right and wrong, and bearing in mind the seriously bad behaviour of many young and not so young people?
Mr. Newton: I have announced the Second Reading of an education Bill for next Monday. It is not for me to say whether comments of that kind could be raised during the debate, but my hon. Friend may like to try to do so. If not, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will answer questions in the Chamber on Wednesday.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Madam Speaker, you may remember that, before Christmas, I raised in the House the question of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announcing the extension of the pattern of the Scottish Grand and Welsh Grand Committees to Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether there have been any developments in that regard since my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I discussed the matter with the Secretary of State? We are still waiting for an announcement.
Mr. Newton: I cannot comment beyond what I remember saying to the hon. Gentleman, in my usual friendly fashion, when he raised the matter previously. However, I have noted—as undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman has—that his hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has put down a wide-ranging question on related matters to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for next Thursday. No doubt the hon. Gentlemen will be able to pursue those exchanges further at that time.
Mr. David Congdon: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the next few weeks for a debate on local government finance, particularly on the practice of Labour-controlled councils using local council press offices as an arm of party propaganda? That is a disgraceful abuse of taxpayers' money, and I would welcome a debate on the subject.
Mr. Newton: I am glad to say that there will be an opportunity for further debate on such matters before too long, as the usual local government finance orders must come before the House in the next month or six weeks.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 288, which refers to the 1,600 jobs that Scottish Courage decided to axe this week.
[That this House is dismayed at the decision taken by Scottish Courage to axe 1,600 jobs nationally; is appalled at the proposal to close the Fountain Head brewery in Halifax with the loss of over two hundred jobs; notes that the productivity per employee at the Halifax brewery is higher than any in the group; and calls upon Scottish Courage to reverse its decision on all these closures.]
Is the Leader of the House aware that more than 200 of those jobs are in my constituency, and that Scottish Courage intends to close the brewery, which is one of the most efficient in its whole operation? Could he make time for an urgent debate about those job losses, and about the fact that Scottish and Newcastle took control of Courage only a few months ago, apparently intending to close down part of the operation?
Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Lady's concern on behalf of her constituency. Equally, she must understand that decisions of that kind are not for the Government to make, but are commercial decisions for the company. However, it may be that she could find a way of raising the matter in the House if she so wished, perhaps on a Wednesday morning—although I see that she has other things on her mind for next Wednesday.
Mr. Piers Merchant: Will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the plight of my constituents and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members who live near the present route of channel tunnel trains? Is he aware of the distress that is caused to thousands of people as a result of noise and disturbance? Does he agree that a debate would give the Government an opportunity to respond at greater length to the sixth report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, which examined the allied question of compensation for blight between the years 1990 and 1994?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to provide an early opportunity for further debate on those matters. They are, of course, apart from anything else, under consideration by the Committee that is considering the private Bill. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear in mind my hon. Friend's observations.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Leader of the House has no doubt seen my letter to him of 10 January, the subject of which is the abuse of Welsh Question Time. The subject has appeared in early-day motion 256.
[That this House acknowledges that Welsh oral questions provide 40 minutes, once a month, for Welsh Members of Parliament to hold the Secretary of State and fellow Welsh Offices Ministers, answerable for the executive responsibility which they exercise for wide-ranging portfolios in Wales, including employment, health, education, agriculture, local government, housing, planning, tourism and sport, environment, social services, industrial development and the Welsh language; given the limited opportunities for ensuring answerability for Government action in Wales, regards it as totally

889
reprehensible that Tory honourable Members from Wales continuously should set the agenda for answerability by flooding the Order Paper with Oral Questions for that day; notes that for Monday 22nd January, amongst the first 24 names out of the ballot there are 16 honourable Members for English constituencies and only eight for Welsh constituencies; and calls on the Leader of this House to bring forward charges to the Standing Orders of the House to give precedence to Welsh constituency honourable Members for Questions tabled to the Welsh Office for oral answer.]
On Monday next, only six Members will be called who represent Welsh constituencies. Of the first 10 questions on the Order Paper, six will be asked by Members representing constituencies in England. In all, the names 17 Members from England appear on the Order Paper. Surely it is not good enough to have only 45 minutes every four weeks to examine the Executive in Wales. We are faced with an abuse, and we should have time to debate the matter and to amend Standing Orders.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in response to such a question I shall say—I will, and it is what I believe—that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. It seems that his remarks imply—I hope that they do—support for the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for enhancing the role of the Welsh Grand Committee. His remarks seem to strengthen the case for that.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider having an early and urgent debate on local government in London? Is he aware that 120 officers of Lambeth council face the sack because they are being accused of corruption and fraud? Does that not underline the fact that, for many, new Labour and old Labour have merely become hard Labour?
Mr. Newton: Without attempting to meet the neatness of my hon. Friend's phrase, I would observe that, since the appointment of the new chief executive in 1993 and the change of political control—perhaps what my hon. Friend has said is some reflection—Lambeth at last seems to be taking some steps to put its house in order.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House will have heard the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) about the activities of Scottish and Newcastle. Again, it is an example of a predator company operating in the marketplace and taking over another company without any consideration of local communities, as has happened in the case of Campbell Soups in my constituency. Is it not time that we had a major debate in Government time, so that we can perhaps consider a new framework for takeover policy? Are things not getting quite out of hand?
Mr. Newton: I suppose that I can say—yes, I can—that the hon. Gentleman puts his point in a reasonable way. Given the obvious strength of his feeling about such matters, it might well be worth his considering, if he has not already done so, seeking some time on a Wednesday morning.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on stakeholding, which would allow the
890
House to probe the warm word "smokescreen" that is involved, and perhaps consider the measures that would be involved, such as the restoration of trade union powers, the robbing of savers of the income that they derive, joining the ERM, and, above all, interference in the proper management of British companies?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can improve on the way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister responded to a similar question about half an hour ago.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on the views expressed by Lord Howe, the former Deputy Prime Minister, who said in an interview on London Radio earlier this week that he thought that the abolition of the Greater London council was a mistake, and that a voice for London should be restored? May we have a debate on the governance of London? Among other things, we could discuss the possibility of having an elected mayor for London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Yes, it is a proposal dear to my heart. It is supported also by the present Deputy Prime Minister and by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor).
Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I have not had time to reflect on the remarks that he attributes to my right hon. and noble Friend. I am tempted to say that I might see some merit in the proposal if it led to what I shall loosely call the translation of the hon. Gentleman from this side of the river back to the other.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for yet another debate on procedures in the House? Is he aware that a Labour Member representing a Glasgow constituency—I cannot name him, because I did not have a chance to mention to him in advance that I would be raising the matter—is starting a campaign on behalf of Muhammad Al-Masari? That campaign will jeopardise not only thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom but money that is going to the Exchequer which could otherwise be spent on education and the health service. He makes the matter worse by using House of Commons postage-paid envelopes. Is that not a disgrace?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister commented on this matter on Tuesday, and I would not want to add to what he said.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Leader of the House agree that hardly an hon. Member would not agree with the extension of nursery education for parents who wish it, but that the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, which we are to debate on Monday, is controversial, particularly in respect of financing, administration, inspection and, indeed, the very definition of nursery education? Has the Leader of the House observed that, despite the usual practice of giving powers to Secretaries of State to make regulations, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make only "arrangements"? Can he let us know before that debate whether this has precedent, and, if so, where?
Mr. Newton: This is very much a point that should be raised in the Second Reading debate on Monday, and no doubt it will be. I am sure that it will be helpful to my right hon. Friend to have advance notice of it.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: May we have an urgent debate on the operation of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which seems on occasion to deny courts evidence that they should properly have, and citizens access to justice? I use as an example my constituent, Mr. John Dennis, of Bedworth, who is in a coma. His family are seeking to interview a former lieutenant colonel in the Army who controlled ambulances during the ambulance strike, and they have been told that it would breach the Official Secrets Act to do so. That seems to me to be a denial of justice, which we cannot properly sustain. The House should debate the Act.
Mr. Newton: I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the Leader of the House read and perhaps discuss with his ministerial colleagues early-day motion 275, which is about the chief medical officer and Parliament?
[That this House, whilst understanding the long-standing convention of the House that honourable Members are unable to table parliamentary questions on the internal working of government, considers that it has been extended unreasonably by not allowing honourable Members to obtain the view of the Chief Medical Officer on important public health issues of the day by asking parliamentary questions; considers that the Chief Medical Officer has wider responsibilities to the public than other civil servants; and therefore asks in the interests of public health and open government that the Government remove the block on parliamentary questions relating to the expert opinions of the Chief Medical Officer.]
Is it not appalling that hon. Members cannot get the clear opinion of the chief medical officer on public health matters without it being filtered through a Minister—or perhaps denied by a Minister? As the chief medical officer has wider responsibilities than other civil servants in relation to public health matters, should there not be a clear line to hon. Members who want his opinion?
Mr. Newton: The code of practice on access to Government information confirmed that the advice that the chief medical officer provides to Ministers to assist in the development of their policies is confidential. As far as I am aware, there is nothing new in that, and that is very much the position with advice that is provided to or within Government, including that of the Law Officers.
Mr. David Winnick: In order to dampen down the speculation fever regarding the Tory
892
leadership and the Prime Minister's position, would it not be appropriate for the Deputy Prime Minister to make a statement to the House next week, to make it clear that under no circumstances will he do to the Prime Minister what he did to Lady Thatcher in 1990?
Mr. Newton: I noted my right hon. Friend's comments at Prime Minister's questions, as no doubt did the hon. Gentleman. I can only say that there is no need to dampen down a fire that has never been started.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on transport, so that we can congratulate hon. Members on the remarkable change that has taken place in our car park? Last January, 26 vehicles in the car park were fitted with bull bars: this week, there has been none. May we also discuss early-day motion 1?
[That this House supports Bristol Coroner Paul Forrest's call of 14th November 1995 for a ban on bull bars at the inquest on Helen Baggs aged 10 of Melksham who was killed by a Land Rover fitted with bull bars; believes that many deaths and serious injuries would have been avoided if the Government and the European Commission had swiftly acted to ban bull bar fashion accessories that concentrate and multiply the force of collisions at the level of a child's head.]
At the same time, we should consider the debate yesterday afternoon in the other place led by the Earl of Kinnoul when it was made clear that Britain can take unilateral action to ban bull bars, but we are waiting for the European Community. Sadly, it is clear that the European Community will not act for at least two years. Why do we not take action now, to prevent future avoidable tragedies?
Mr. Newton: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should put his point in that way, as he well knows that the Commissioner responsible for such matters is the former leader of the Labour party. I suggest that he addresses his representations to him.
Mr. Richard Burden: In view of the Prime Minister's comments at the conclusion of Question Time, that Ministers would not seek to influence the choice of venue for the millennium exhibition, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage to make a statement on the millennium to the House? Many of us in the west midlands find it rather surprising that, although the creative team appointed to run the millennium events recommends the national exhibition centre in Birmingham, it is being asked to consider another venue. The House would like reassurance that Ministers do not see the world as ending at Watford.
Mr. Newton: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that Ministers do not see the world as ending at Watford. We see this as a United Kingdom. For the rest, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Prisoners in Hospital
4.1 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the use of restraints on prisoners attending hospital, particularly women who are pregnant.
The acting Director General of the Prison Service, Richard Tilt, met Caroline Flint, the president of the Royal College of Midwives, on Monday to discuss the use of physical restraints on women prisoners admitted to hospital to give birth.
The discussions were constructive and I am very grateful to the royal college for its help. I should like to make it clear that it has never been the intention of the Prison Service to apply handcuffs or chains to women who are confirmed as being in labour, and never been the intention to apply restraints contrary to medical advice. That will continue to be the case. But the royal college has asked for certain modifications to be made to the use of restraints on pregnant women and the Prison Service has accepted its recommendations.
In future, women taken from prison to hospital to give birth will normally be escorted by two female members of prison staff. In exceptional circumstances, where this is operationally not practicable, at least one will be female. No restraints will be applied to the prisoner from the time at which she arrives at the hospital. No prison staff will be present in the delivery room, unless the prisoner requests it.
Governors will continue to be encouraged to liaise with hospital managers and midwives on these and all other security measures for women admitted to hospital to give birth.
The Royal College of Midwives has also expressed concern about the application of physical restraints to pregnant women waiting in public areas in hospitals for antenatal checks. In future, all physical restraints will be removed from a prisoner on her arrival in a hospital waiting room, unless she is judged to present a particularly high risk of escape and, of course, there is no medical objection to restraints being applied.
The Prison Service has a responsibility to balance the need to hold prisoners securely with the duty to treat them with humanity and to maintain their dignity and privacy. The modifications I have announced will, I believe, allow the Prison Service to strike a reasonable balance on behalf of the public. We are confident that this revised policy provides the correct balance without reducing security to unacceptable levels.
The Prison Service has also taken this opportunity to review its policy of applying physical restraints to other prisoners. Following a thorough risk assessment, some prisoners already attend hospital appointments without an escort under the temporary licence scheme. This will continue to apply. When a prisoner is escorted to hospital, physical restraints will continue to be used in most cases unless there is a medical objection. But where, following a rigorous risk assessment, the governor comes to the conclusion that restraints are unnecessary, they will no longer be used. In such cases, the prisoner will still be accompanied and supervised by Prison Service staff. This builds on the experience of the Prison Service in using rigorous risk assessments under the temporary licence arrangements introduced with great success last year.
894
Let me summarise the new arrangements. First, no woman who goes into hospital to give birth will be restrained from the time she arrives at the hospital until she leaves. Secondly, a pregnant woman who goes to hospital for antenatal checks will have her restraints removed on arrival in the waiting room, unless there is a particularly high risk of escape. Thirdly, in most other cases, physical restraints will continue to be applied, but governors retain the discretion to release prisoners on temporary licence or to send them to hospital under the supervision of staff without restraints being applied.
I am confident that those revised arrangements will strike a better balance between the various considerations that the Prison Service has to take into account. The acting Director General of the Prison Service is writing to governors with details of the new arrangements. He will keep those arrangements under review and monitor their operation.
Mr. Jack Straw: May I begin by welcoming the contents of the Secretary of State's announcement, but is not the truth that he has been driven to this humiliating retreat, not by decency or compassion, but by panic at the avalanche of bad publicity that has engulfed both him and his Minister of State? Is it not the case that Ministers initially believed that they could brazen their way out of this appalling situation and that, had it not been for the Channel 4 film, public outrage and ministerial bungling, that is exactly what they would have done?
As the Royal College of Midwives last July publicly condemned the obscene practice of routinely manacling pregnant women, will the Secretary of State explain why it has taken him so long to acknowledge its concerns? The Minister of State gave one limited apology on Monday, but is not a wider apology now required from the Secretary of State for the brutal and unnecessary humiliation that his policy has forced on a number of pregnant prisoners?
The Secretary of State said in his statement:
"The Prison Service has a responsibility to balance the need to hold prisoners securely with the duty to treat them with humanity and to maintain their dignity and privacy."
But is not the truth that, until today, it had been the Secretary of State's policy that had prevented prison staff from achieving that balance? Does he accept that his Minister of State was wrong to deny, not only that Whittington hospital had expressed concerns about the practice disclosed on the Channel 4 programme, but that the prisoner concerned was chained during her labour? Is the Secretary of State aware that the woman's consultant obstetrician has derided as "factually inaccurate" the Minister's ridiculous assertion last week that labour had been established only once a form had been filled in?
Is it not the case that, under the Secretary of State's stewardship of the Prison Service, short-term political imperatives have time and again taken precedence over what is necessary to run a secure and effective service? Is not this sorry episode deeply symbolic of the Government's arrogance and inhumanity, and of the way in which they have so comprehensively lost touch with the common decency of the British people?
Mr. Howard: I entirely reject the pathetic ranting of the hon. Gentleman and the construction that he has put on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office in the House last week. My hon. Friend said then that a meeting was to take place between the acting Director General and the Royal College of Midwives. That meeting has taken place, and I am pleased that the Prison Service has been able to respond to the concerns of the royal college.
Far from the policy being politically motivated, the Prison Service deals with such matters. It was the Prison Service that made the original decision that led to the physical restraint of female prisoners, and it has responded positively to the concerns expressed by the Royal College of Midwives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Some hon. Members entered the Chamber when the Home Secretary had nearly finished his statement; others came in after he had sat down. I have their names on a list. They will understand that I cannot possibly call an hon. Member who did not hear the Home Secretary's statement: that has always been my policy. I do not want to embarrass those hon. Members, but they know who they are.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend is often wrongly accused of intervening in the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. Will he accept the thanks and congratulations of many Conservative Members and, I dare say—if they were truthful—many Opposition Members as well? He has listened carefully to our concerns about this practice, not just in the past few days but for several weeks. I thank him for that, and congratulate him on his statement.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend again confirm, so that there is no shadow of doubt, that the practice at Holloway prison that gave rise to our concern was initiated not by him or any Minister, but by the Prison Service?
Mr. Howard: It is true that the original decision was made by the Prison Service, as was the decision to respond to the Royal College of Midwives. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will understand if I decline to accept his congratulations on a decision made by the Prison Service.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The new policy is welcome, but will the Home Secretary now admit that restraints have been applied to women who are clinically in labour? What steps are being taken to ensure that the Prison Service does not mislead Ministers in future, as it did in this instance—as the Minister of State told us in her personal apology to the House the other day?
Will the Home Secretary now tackle the problem of the large number of young pregnant women who are in prison partly as a result of obscenities such as the imprisonment of young women who have failed to pay a fine for not having a television licence?
Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked three questions. First, the Prison Service has never
896
intended women to be restrained while in labour; as far as I am aware, that has happened on only one occasion, some two years ago, and the Prison Service fully recognised that it had been at fault. Secondly, the acting Director General of the Prison Service is taking steps to ensure that there is no repetition of what happened last week, when, as she explained to the House, wrong information was conveyed to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Thirdly, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know full well that the courts sentence women to imprisonment only after having considered alternative punishments. It is always as a result of court decisions that women are sent to prison.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he certainly has my support, as has my hon. Friend the Minister? I congratulate her on the way in which she has handled the issue; she has had a difficult and delicate task to perform.
Many people in the country believe that women who are in prison after committing a series of crimes—who are there because they are criminals—are handled with a reasonable amount of delicacy. They believe that, when women prisoners are expecting babies—and it is not unknown for women to become pregnant between the time of their arrest and the meting out of punishment—they are given the courtesy of being allowed to go to hospital for the delivery of their babies.
The honesty and openness displayed by the Minister are much appreciated by the public, who insist that the Government should ensure that people who are in prison for committing crimes, but must be let out to receive medical treatment, are properly restrained.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has characteristically made a number of cogent points. I am sure that she speaks for a great many people. I will certainly ensure that her remarks are conveyed to the Prison Service.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not now obvious that, over a number of months, the Home Secretary received clear advice from medical and nursing staff in the hospitals concerned that the practice was putting at risk not only mothers but the children involved? Is it not also clear that the inept, incompetent and arrogant attempt by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) to brazen out this absolutely despicable behaviour is certainly not worthy of a responsible Minister?
Mr. Howard: Neither of those allegations is true. It has always been the case, and will of course continue to be the case, that if doctors, nurses or midwives suggest that the application of restraints will damage the health of the patient, those restraints will be removed. The hon. Lady is therefore entirely mistaken in her first allegation and in her second.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm for victims of crime in Lichfield and other parts of the United Kingdom that we are discussing not innocent young gals but convicted criminals? Will he also confirm that there was never a question of the use of balls and chains—as one might believe if one read the press reports—but that we were

897
talking about light manacles? Will he reiterate, for victims of crime in Lichfield and elsewhere, that other forms of restraints will be used to ensure that people who escaped in the past will not escape in the future?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right in that there has undoubtedly been—perhaps inevitably—an enormous amount of distortion in the coverage of this issue. I can certainly assure him that the interests of victims remain my first priority and that prisoners will continue to be restrained.
Ms Glenda Jackson: In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Home Secretary stated that, if any member of the medical profession in a hospital had requested the removal of restraints, it would have been carried out immediately. May I point out that he was entirely incorrect in that reply? On more than one occasion, the medical staff of the Whittington hospital in my constituency asked that the restraints be removed, yet the escorting officer refused so to do until Holloway gaol was telephoned and permission from the governor of the prison was obtained. I expect that the Home Secretary will take this opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend and the House. Will the change in the regime apply to all women, whether pregnant or not, who have to go into hospital for treatment?
Mr. Howard: The point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich was that requests had repeatedly been made and not complied with. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said that, when requests were made, the prison officers concerned telephoned the prison before complying with the requests. If I may say so, that is an entirely different matter. Even the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate must be capable of appreciating the distinction between those two points. On her second question, I made the extent of the changes absolutely clear in my statement.
Mr. Piers Merchant: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his speedy action in coming to the House this afternoon? It shows that he has responded with compassion to expressed concerns. Does he agree that it is the prime responsibility of the Prison Service to prevent prisoners—often dangerous—from escaping, thus protecting ordinary, innocent members of the public?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That of course remains the primary duty of the prison service, which will continue to do its utmost to discharge it.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Home Secretary take the opportunity to apologise to women who have been subjected to barbaric treatment during labour and while giving birth? Despite what his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, although the women may have been convicted of crimes, the babies are innocent?
Mr. Howard: I have already said that, so far as I am aware, there has only ever been one incident, some two
898
years ago, of one woman being wrongly restrained while she was in labour. Most people will be much more concerned about the future policy that I have outlined to the House this afternoon.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it significant that the shadow Home Secretary did not once mention during his intervention that every one of those women is either a convicted criminal or has been remanded in custody by a court which considers them to be dangerous or likely to abscond, and that my constituents expect that everyone sent to prison by the courts should remain there securely? Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed a further oddity in this afternoon's question period, which is that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson)—our former colleague who resigned from the Conservative party because she said that she was concerned about the shackling of women—has not even bothered to turn up for his statement? Does he find that significant?
Mr. Howard: I agree with the first of my hon. Friend's points. Conservative Members attempt to take a balanced approach to these issues. That balance is absent from the approach of Opposition Members. I agree with my hon. Friend about the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. I find it even more remarkable that last week she sat through the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), and did not get to her feet and utter one comment or ask one question.
Ms Jean Corston: The Home Secretary will be aware that the Government have already lost two of their members who have expressly referred to the cruel and inhumane treatment of women prisoners as one of the reasons why they realised that today's Conservative party is not the party they joined. Can he tell us what he thinks the effect of this practice has been on would-be Conservative voters? Will he also direct his mind back to 19 October 1995 when, in an answer to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), he told the House that such women were not kept in chains? Will he now apologise for that?
Mr. Howard: Conservative voters expect the Government to take a balanced approach to these matters. Indeed, that is what the people of this country expect the Government to do, and that is precisely what we are doing.
During the debate in October, I dealt with the practice of prisoners under escort, and what I said was entirely accurate.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given that the Home Secretary has finally been dragged, kicking and screaming, to reverse the odious practice of shackling prisoners, is it not time now to utter one little word to the women who have been so degraded and to their absolutely innocent babies? Is it not time to say sorry?
Mr. Howard: I have come to the House as soon as I could following the response of the Prison Service to the discussions that have taken place between it and the royal

899
college. As I said earlier, most people will he concerned about future policy, and that is what I have addressed this afternoon.
Mr. Peter Shore: This is a squalid and shameful episode in our penal history, and I do not think that the Secretary of State should be anything other than ashamed of his Department and himself in his conduct of the matter. I ask him directly: who was responsible for the policy of putting pregnant women in shackles when they were in hospital? If it is the responsibility of the Prison Service, it ought not to be; important issues such as this ought to be decided by Ministers. If it is his responsibility—it should be his responsibility—he should own up and apologise to the House and the country.
Mr. Howard: These detailed matters of security—[Interruption.] These matters of security—although I accept that they are important—are dealt with entirely by the Prison Service as operational matters. That is how the decision came to be made in the first place and that is how the Prison Service responded to the concerns expressed by the Royal College of Midwives.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Home Secretary recall that, on 19 October at column 518 of Hansard, he gave the House to understand not only that women prisoners were not put in chains, but that in his opinion the shackling of women prisoners was an operational matter and not a policy matter for him? Is he still contending that it is a matter of detail and only an operational matter? Does he still not appreciate how far he and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), have failed to understand the conscience of a nation, which not only will not tolerate such degrading barbarities, but insists that Ministers themselves take responsibility for the ways in which prisoners are treated?
Mr. Howard: I have made it plain throughout the afternoon that these are operational matters for the Prison Service.
Ms Corston: So why are you here?
Mr. Howard: In answer to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Lady, I am here because I am accountable to Parliament for the decisions of the Prison Service, as has been explained on countless occasions. I accept that many operational decisions are extremely important and that this is one of them, but, as I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman when he intervened in my speech in October asking whether he should have received an answer to a letter that he had written from me rather than from the director of security of the Prison Service, given what I have said this afternoon, it was entirely appropriate that the director replied.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Home Secretary not realise that his use of the word "detailed" in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) must be wholly unacceptable to most electors? Does he know whether the relevant
900
professional organisations were consulted when the original Prison Service regulations were made? Has an inquiry been mounted into the administrative error for which the hon. Lady the Minister of State apologised earlier this week? Will he tell the House what was found and who was responsible?
Mr. Howard: The acting director general is pursuing with those directly responsible exactly what happened on that occasion, and his inquiries are not yet completed. As to the nature of the decisions that were made, I entirely accept that they are important matters, but, as I said a moment ago, many operational matters are important.
Mr. Alan Simpson: There is profound disagreement over whether the events under dispute are matters of operational detail or of public policy that should be held to account in the House. Will the Minister return to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)? Although I have only limited experience of childbirth, having being involved in the birth of my own children, I do not understand how a governor at the other end of a telephone line can be expected to determine whether labour has started. Surely the point at issue is that, when medical staff say that people should not be manacled, they should not be manacled?
Mr. Howard: As I understood the question from the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, she was taking up my point that it has always been the intention of the prison service that when a request was made by a doctor and nurse or a midwife for restraints to be removed because they were detrimental to the medical condition of the patient, they should be removed. That was the hon. Lady's question and that was the context in which I pointed out the distinction between what she described and what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) had described earlier.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Home Secretary accept that most ordinary people understand that there will be occasions when women prisoners have to be handcuffed, but what ordinary people outside this House found both preposterous and repellent was the Minister of State's proposition that, in the last few hours before labour or when a woman is walking around in the middle of labour, she is likely to make a bid for escape? We also accept that, although those women are criminals—as his hon. Friends have said over and over again—they are also human beings, and there is no reason why they should be degraded in that way at a time which most women would agree is one of the most vulnerable in their lives.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Minister said last week that discussions were going to take place between the acting Director General of the Prison Service and the Royal College of Midwives. I am pleased that those discussions have turned out to be so constructive and that the Prison Service has been able to respond so positively to the concerns expressed by the royal college. That was the basis of my statement to the House this afternoon.
Mr. John Hutton: Although I welcome the changes that the Home Secretary has

901
announced, does he accept that his statement amounts to a clear admission that the claims made by his hon. Friend the Minister of State on 9 January that existing policies were civilised and secure were clearly not the case? Will he also tell the House what arrangements will apply to remand prisoners? Will it be a different set of criteria from those announced today? After all, remand prisoners remain innocent until proven guilty.
Mr. Howard: I have dealt on a number of occasions with what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said last week. She said that discussions would take place. They have taken place and they have led to the decision of the Prison Service which I announced this afternoon. The only respect in which procedures will be different for remand prisoners is that they are not eligible for temporary release. Save for that distinction, remand prisoners, who are remanded in custody by the courts for particular reasons, will be treated in the same way as convicted prisoners.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that there have been concerns for some considerable time about the handcuffing and manacling of prisoners from Holloway who are being taken to the Whittington hospital? Staff on the labour ward at that hospital have registered their concerns about that practice, through the hospital's general manager, to the Prison Service. It is only because of the publicity generated in the past few weeks that the Home Secretary has got round to showing any interest in the subject and making this statement.
Will he now publish all the details of all the complaints made by medical staff to his Department about the manacling of women prisoners and open discussions urgently with the Whittington hospital to take up its offer of allowing the community midwifery service access to the prison, to avoid the necessity of transferring women to the hospital when they could be seen there?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred in some detail in her personal statement on Monday to the correspondence that had taken place. On the Whittington's suggestion that discussions should take place with a view to providing more antenatal services in the prison, making it unnecessary for prisoners to visit hospital for those purposes, as the hon. Gentleman said, I can confirm that Holloway prison intends to enter into discussions with the hospital with a view to finding out whether such an arrangement can be put into effect.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Given that prisoners are on occasion
902
transferred, often for compassionate reasons, from English prisons to gaols in Northern Ireland and Scotland, what discussions has the Home Secretary had on the changes in procedures with the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland? Things are a little better in Scotland, but not so very long ago a prisoner had to undergo an operation for haemorrhoids while handcuffed to a prison officer. I ought to add that the prison officer was both masked and gowned and the prisoner was a male, but nevertheless there are problems here.
Mr. Howard: I am not responsible for prison conditions in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and nothing in my statement is at all relevant to the transfer of prisoners between England and Wales and Scotland or Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my statement dealt with the restraints necessary in certain circumstances for prisoners in hospital.
Mr. George Howarth: The Home Secretary is tying himself in knots. He has been maintaining for the past few minutes that the practice itself was a matter of operational policy and that the changes he has announced this afternoon are matters of detail in operational policy. Yet he said in his statement:
"We are confident that this revised policy provides the correct balance without reducing security to unacceptable levels."
If he is not responsible for the policy, who is?
Mr. Howard: It is absolutely clear that considerations of security are matters for the Prison Service. It was right for the Prison Service to take the decision originally, and it is right for the service to have responded positively to the discussions that it had with the Royal College of Midwives.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING
  Mr. Secretary Gummer, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Lilley, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Jonathan Evans and Mr. James Clappison presented a Bill to make provision about housing, including provision about the social rented sector, houses in multiple occupation, landlord and tenant matters, the administration of housing benefit, the conduct of tenants, the allocation of housing accommodation by local housing authorities and homelessness; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

The Army
[Relevant documents: the Defence Committee has reported on the Reserve Forces in its Twelfth Report of Session 1994–95, HC 65, and on Gulf War Syndrome in its Eleventh Report, HC 197. The Seventh Special Report, HC 802, containing the Government's Replies to the Committee's Sixth Report on Defence Use of Civilian Transport Assets and Personnel, HC 86, and the Seventh Report on Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance and Target Acquisition, HC 319, i.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
4.35 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): When we last debated the Army—less than one year ago—who could have imagined that, today, the deployment of some 13,000 British troops as part of a NATO-led force charged with the implementation of an historic peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia would be virtually complete? Indeed, 4 Armoured Brigade has today been declared fully operational, ahead of schedule.
After four years of truly horrific carnage, there is now the prospect of a genuine and lasting peace in the Balkans. The Army, as well as the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, has played a vital part in achieving this much, and will be central to the agreement's future success. Of course, we must not forget that our troops are also supporting British interests around the globe; I shall mention some of the more significant deployments a little later. I should like first, however, to concentrate on what is a truly historic operation.
Since 1992, the British Army has served with great distinction in the former Yugoslavia, first as part of UNPROFOR and now as the second largest element of the NATO-led peace implementation force, IFOR. As the line is now drawn under the UNPROFOR operation, we can look back with pride at the fantastic contribution made by the British Army and, indeed, the other services, which resulted in the saving of many thousands of lives over three bitter winters in the Balkans.
It is also wholly fitting today to pay tribute to the troops from other nations who took part in the UN operation, and to the 78 UN soldiers who, sadly, were killed as a result of action by the warring parties, but today I pay a particularly wholehearted and warm tribute—as will the rest of the House—to the many British soldiers who served so well in a primarily humanitarian and peacekeeping operation, albeit that there was often little peace to keep in the past three years.
Soldiers from the Royal Armoured Corps, the infantry, the gunners, signallers, sappers, aviators, engineers, cooks, drivers, logisticians, medics and military policemen—every single one of them deserves our wholehearted and genuine admiration. The House will wish to salute their endeavours. The contribution that they made to the humanitarian effort that saved so many lives and to the restoration of relative peace and stability in central Bosnia during this period was second to none, and all those who took part can look back on their performance with considerable pride. All the soldiers, sailors and airmen who have taken part in the operation can feel a true sense of pride that what they were engaged in was extremely worthwhile and important.
Quite apart from the vital tasks of keeping the peace and helping the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to deliver vast amounts of aid, British
904
logisticians, sappers and engineers were heavily involved in a wide variety of projects to improve the civilian infrastructure. Among other notable achievements, they have constructed more than 100 km of brand new roads. They have constructed, improved and maintained more than 1,000 km of routes to help the humanitarian effort and the distribution of aid. They have disposed of more than 3,500 mines and unexploded objects, and overseen the clearance of more than 70 major minefields, reducing the risk to innocent civilians. They have repaired and rebuilt bridges, notably a 270 ft Bailey bridge in Mostar, to link the Muslim and Croatian sides. They have reconnected water, gas and electricity supplies, including the water supply to 45,000 people in Bugojno and 26,000 more in Gorazde, thus dramatically improving the quality of life of the local people. They have also reopened and rebuilt schools and health centres.
Tragically, in the course of the UNPROFOR operation, 18 British troops were killed and 42 were seriously wounded. Our heartfelt sympathies go to the relatives of the brave men who gave their lives, not only in the service of their country but when trying to alleviate the suffering of others.
Great Britain is now making a formidable and impressive contribution to the IFOR campaign. In all, up to 13,000 British ground troops will be deployed, including the headquarters of the ACE rapid reaction corps, a divisional headquarters and an all-arms brigade. In addition, 3,000 Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel support the operation on the sea and in the air.
The House will also wish to acknowledge some of the unsung heroes of that operation, especially the exceptional work that has been done by the tri-service movements staff in getting all those people and their kit into theatre in an almost unbelievably tight time scale.
Ours is by far the most militarily significant contribution by a European nation and it is second in size only to the United States contingent. It is also a tangible expression of our willingness to fulfil our obligations as a key member of NATO and our international role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I hope that the House agrees that it carries a clear and entirely unambiguous message about our steadfast commitment to Europe's security and the absolute primacy of NATO as the bedrock of our defence policy.
Following the extraordinarily successful period when General Sir Rupert Smith and General Sir Michael Rose commanded UNPROFOR, British officers continue to exercise a defining leadership role, with General Sir Michael Walker, commander of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps, ARRC, directing IFOR land operations in theatre. Indeed, it is a remarkable tribute to all that Britain has done as the framework nation for the allied rapid reaction corps—ARRC—that NATO immediately turned to the ARRC headquarters to command the land operation.
Our troops' performance in IFOR has continued to add to their formidable reputation, and it is no exaggeration to say that they have commanded the respect of all parties as they have coped in adverse and frequently arduous conditions with great fortitude and good humour.
The House may recall an example of that last July, when Corporal Neil Coull of the Royal Logistic Corps was challenged to an impromptu boxing match by the commander of a Muslim road block between Zepce and

905
Vitez. Corporal Coull, from Billingham in Cleveland, was on one of his routine mail runs on 11 July 1995 when he found, to his displeasure, a Canadian convoy halted at a road block. Corporal Coull insisted that mail for the British forces must be allowed through, but the road block commander barred the route—until he noticed a pair of boxing gloves in the back of the Corporal Coull's Land-Rover. Corporal Coull, a keen amateur boxer, was promptly challenged to a winner-takes-all boxing match. A makeshift ring was marked out by the roadside and, amid much cheering, Corporal Coull knocked his opponent to the ground in 30 seconds. As a result, the Queen's mail was allowed free passage to be delivered safely and on time to Her Majesty's troops.
I am grateful to the Quartermaster General, General Sir Willy Rous, chairman of the highly successful Army Boxing Association, for that admirable story.
The IFOR operation is going well. I am pleased to be able to report that, throughout Bosnia, we are witnessing a pulling back from all sides. British forces are conducting a major operation to check that withdrawal in sector south-west, and report almost complete compliance in advance of the deadline.
Not only the regular Army is deploying to Bosnia. Some 450 members of the Territorial Army and individual reservists have been called out for service. All are volunteers. They include signallers, engineers, movement controllers, military policemen and petroleum specialists. The deployment of reservists is a clear demonstration of the importance of the Territorial Army in the post cold war world. I hope to return to the reserves later in my speech.
To date, IFOR has, in the main, enjoyed the co-operation of the warring factions and has established freedom of movement throughout the theatre, including in Bosnian-Serb areas. Although there have been some breaches of the ceasefire, they have been isolated incidents. Challenges and great difficulties no doubt lie ahead, but IFOR is well equipped to deal robustly with any problems that it may face. The House will want to join me in wishing our service men and women a successful and trouble-free tour of duty and a safe return to the UK.
When we last debated the Army, the ceasefires in Northern Ireland had been in force for only six months, yet even at that early stage the effects on the lives of the people of the Province and of our armed forces had been dramatic. We are now more than 15 months into the ceasefires, and their continuation gives us cause for hope that the peace process will triumph and lift the curse of terrorism that has blighted the lives of the good people of Northern Ireland.
We have responded positively to the reduction in the terrorist threat in 1995 by relocating three battalions and a squadron to their home bases outside Northern Ireland. Greater responsibility has passed to the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, which have taken on many of the remaining tasks. The actions of the Royal Irish Regiment and its predecessors have been of a quality and standard that are in the ultimate and highest traditions of the British Army, and the commitment of full and part-time members of the regiment and their almost unbelievable courage continue to deserve our unqualified admiration and respect. I salute them.
906
There remains no room for complacency. The recent spate of vicious punishment attacks, which no right-minded person can justify, shows that violence has by no means disappeared in Northern Ireland. All terrorist organisations still have access to large quantities of illegal weapons. So, as we have said many times before, although we are committed to a return to exclusively civilian policing, we must not and will not lower our guard prematurely. Our troops remain prepared to assist the Royal Ulster Constabulary in whatever way they can.
For the majority, particularly those serving on two-year resident tours accompanied by their families, the reduction in routine support to the RUC has provided welcome opportunities to undertake training in a wide range of military skills. It has also been possible to take a more active part in community relations projects. I had a heartening visit to East Tyrone just before Christmas to see the Irish Guards, whose achievements in building bridges for the local community were outstanding and demonstrated what could be achieved in a range of activities by bright, dedicated and committed officers and men.
Beyond those two major commitments, Army units and individuals are deployed worldwide.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the first few minutes of his speech.
Members of the Royal Irish Regiment and the Army in general will appreciate the Minister's remarks in respect of their service in Northern Ireland. However, despite the best intentions of its commanding officers and those responsible for it, the Army will be underemployed as a result of the present ceasefire. Is the Minister aware that extra resources in terms of training facilities and extra instructors, for example, would greatly benefit the Army in Northern Ireland? The last thing that we want is boredom and a lowering of morale because the Army is underemployed, because it is doing a necessary job by remaining in Northern Ireland while the ceasefire is so tenuous.
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman, who has an outstanding and extremely gallant record, knows that we have in Northern Ireland a remarkable commander, General Sir Roger Wheeler, who is entirely aware of the difficulties that may arise, and deeply conscious of the need to ensure that the troops are well employed, well led and well motivated, and understand their role and mission clearly. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case. We will watch the situation closely.
Beyond the two major commitments in Bosnia and Northern Ireland, Army units and individuals are deployed worldwide in the vigorous support of British interests. From Cyprus to Brunei, from the Transcaucasus to the Falklands, the British Army is a visible element of the Government's commitment to peace and security, and to the determined and vigorous pursuit of our national interests.
The House will recall the key role that the Army has played in helping to form South Africa's new army, and so to underpin the hard-won peace. Also in Africa, a self-supporting logistics battalion of some 650 personnel undertook a three-month deployment to Angola, starting

907
from May 1995, where they played a vital part in the United Nations peacekeeping operation. Their task was to establish the logistic infrastructure for the United Nations Angola verification mission. Without that infrastructure, the mission would not have succeeded and the greatest credit attaches to the work of our troops.
The battalion was drawn mainly from the Royal Logistic Corps, with elements from the Royal Engineers; the Royal Corps of Signals; the Welsh Guards; 4 Field Ambulance; and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. They were supported by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Sir Galahad, and by aircraft and specialists from the Royal Air Force. They set up and handed over to UN contractors a comprehensive system for receiving, storing and distributing supplies to peacekeepers in the field. They also helped the arrival and onward deployment of infantry battalions and supporting units from other nations.
The operation was by no means straightforward, and the UN force commander expressed his exceptional appreciation of the British contingent's part in the critical initial phase. A small group of staff officers remains at the UN force headquarters in Luanda, where it has played an influential role in planning and organising the UN operation.
Clearly, the Army is and has been engaged on a large number of operational commitments. I make no apology for that. Operations are the raison d'être of an army.
Mr. Toby Jessel: So far, my hon. Friend has not mentioned Army bands. Will he join me in paying a warm tribute to British Army bands, whose continuing high standard of excellence is the envy of the entire world? They enhance Army morale and they are trained at the Kneller Hall Royal Military School of Music in Twickenham. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the new bandstand is now under construction and that that further mark of confidence in Kneller Hall underlines the suitability of that location as the natural site for any future defence school of music?
Mr. Soames: Well, I do not know where to start. My hon. Friend's vigorous championing of the Army school of music is a role model for all hon. Members who wish to promote their constituency interests. I agree with everything he said about Army bands. In 1995, in the celebrations of VE day and VJ day, we saw the wonder of Army bands from all over the United Kingdom at their best. I wholly endorse everything that my hon. Friend said and I am happy to give him any assurances that will lay his mind to rest. The bandstand is being built, and if it was not, it will be now.
As I have said, the Army is extremely busy. Indeed, it is the invaluable experience of operations that sharpens and hones the remarkable skills and exceptional professionalism of the British Army. The truth is that it is the operational deployments that help to make the Army such a stimulating and rewarding career.
However, there are understandable fears that the Army is over-extended. In this context, I wish to reaffirm the Government's commitment to achieving an average operational tour interval for infantry battalions of 24 months.
908
In 1995–96, we shall achieve an average interval of only about 22 months for the infantry, although we shall exceed the target comfortably for the Royal Artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps. On the basis of current commitments, including the continuing IFOR deployment, we expect to meet the target of 24 months for the infantry in 1996–97.
When the Army is successfully meeting a high level of commitments and training extremely hard for other contingency tasks which we lay on it, I recognise the real pressures that are brought to bear on the families of service men and women. I take this opportunity to pay the warmest possible tribute to Army wives and their families and, at a time of high operational requirements, when their loved ones are away a great deal, to acknowledge each and every Army family for their patience and forbearance.
As a former soldier, I shall always be grateful for the spontaneous generosity, kindness and good humour of service families. I remember the great importance of "the patch" and all that that means to service life. I am personally very conscious that service families do not always have an easy life. I want them to know that their concerns and anxieties are at the forefront of our thoughts when difficult decisions and judgments have to be made.
The Army is, of course, playing a major role in the establishment of the new joint rapid deployment force—the JRDF. The Fifth Airborne Brigade, with its two battalions of the Parachute Regiment, and two Airland infantry battalions, with supporting artillery, engineer and logistics units, forms part of the core around which the JRDF will be structured, and can be tailored to meet the individual requirements of any particular task.
That force, which will be held at a high state of readiness, will be a major enhancement to our ability to project power quickly in support of British interests worldwide—and will make good use of the fearsome specialist skills and versatility for which the Parachute Regiment is justly famous.
Such operations reinforce the great respect that is felt for the British Army worldwide. They also play an important part in making a career in the Army so stimulating and fascinating for the thousands of young men and women who pass through its ranks. Indeed, a career in the Army continues to offer a rewarding and exciting life, with excellent opportunities not to be found in any other walk of life.
This very afternoon, for example, as we sit in a warm House of Commons, elements of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment, 7 Royal Horse Artillery, 36 Engineer Regiment and supporting arms are in the Cascade mountains of Washington state, USA, on a major battalion-level training exercise. Also, a battery from 1 Royal Horse Artillery is exercising in Kenya, and a squadron of the Household Cavalry is exercising in Cyprus.
A small team has been dispatched to Zimbabwe to assist the Zimbabwean armed forces in training their troops in awareness of the threat from landmines before they deploy a battalion to Angola; a British colonel is acting as deputy chief of staff of the Latvian armed forces; and a colour sergeant has returned today from giving a bagpipe instructor's course in Colombia.
Loan service personnel are deployed all over the world from Belize to Bermuda, Malaysia to Mauritius and South Africa to Singapore. That is in addition to on-going jungle warfare training in Brunei and major exercises on the

909
Suffield plains of Canada, where the British Army sustains and justifies its ability still to be able to prosecute the high intensity land battle.
Closer to home, on Salisbury plain, 32 Regiment Royal Artillery are conducting live firing whilst young company commanders are participating in Exercise Globetrotter—an all-arms tactics course.
A platoon commanders' battle course is taking place in the Brecon Beacons, and recruit training is continues to be carried out at Glencorse in Scotland. Meanwhile, the Army Air Corps is using the battle group simulator at Catterick. In the United Kingdom and in Germany, the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and a squadron of the Light Dragoons are working up to deploy to Bosnia between February and May. There really is no other career in the United Kingdom that can offer such wonderful diversity, responsibility and excitement.
To sustain such a level of performance into the future, we must continue to attract a sufficient number of high-quality recruits to the service. To maintain the right balance of age and experience, the Army needs to recruit about 15,000 young soldiers each year. By and large, the fighting end of the Army is a profession for the young, and a regular inflow of recruits is essential if an appropriate structure of age and rank is to be retained.
This is truly a daunting target. The truth is that fewer volunteers than we would like are coming forward, particularly for service in the combat arms, so we are taking urgent action to ensure that the Army will get—and can keep—the soldiers that it needs.
As part of this, we are running a well targeted and carefully thought out advertising campaign to meet the shortfall in recruits to some units. Furthermore, a recruiting initiative was launched last week with the Employment Service to advertise jobs in the armed forces at 1,100 jobcentres nationwide. We are confident that, although the initiative will not solve all the problems, it will be of considerable benefit to the services and tap into a pool of young people who may not have considered a service career before.
Meanwhile, regiments are undertaking vigorous recruiting efforts, and we are studying, with the Chief of the General Staff and the Army Board, how we may further fortify, refresh and sustain the historic county and regional links with the Army, to which it and they rightly attach the greatest importance.
An Army career is still without parallel in the variety and excitement it provides and in the diverse trades and specialties that it offers.
Improving recruitment, however, is only part of the solution. We must also improve the rate of retention, especially of young soldiers. Accordingly, we have introduced a re-engagement bounty to encourage young trained soldiers to remain in the Army, with all the valuable and specialist skills that they acquire. The Adjutant General and his excellent team are looking at ideas such as modern apprenticeships and bringing military qualifications more into line with the requirements of civilian employers—through the introduction of NVQs, for example.
I acknowledge with gratitude the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in this context. I attach the greatest importance to all this, but we have much still to do and we are pushing ahead with determination and vigour.
910
A further valuable source of potential recruits are the cadet forces, which provide many young people with their first experience of the armed forces and the service way of life. They also play an important wider role in our national life, helping young people to develop good citizenship, self-reliance and confidence through the provision of challenging activities and valuable and exciting training. Many cadets become role models in their communities.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the truly magnificent dedication and leadership provided by thousands of adult volunteers, who give of their spare time to run cadet units and to make them the great success that they are. I thank them all.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Just last Friday, I formally opened the Army cadet force hall in Port Glasgow. Although I appreciated the smartness of the youngsters and of their NCOs and other officers, I was struck by the rather sparse resources devoted to their training. I hope that the Minister's officials will carefully consider any requests for further resources from this and other cadet forces in the west of Scotland.
Mr. Soames: I can think of no one better than a former royal military policeman to open a cadet branch—it was lucky to have the hon. Gentleman. I hear what he says: these units are not provided for as generously as we would like, but we have a finite sum of money and we have to spread it as best we can. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific ideas, I shall be happy to attend to them. I am delighted that he took the trouble to go and visit the Army cadets, and I urge all hon. Members never to miss an opportunity to do the same. They will leave the cadet forces feeling immensely encouraged if they do.
Returning to the reserve forces, I should like to take this opportunity to stress again the Government's wholehearted commitment to the Territorial Army and all the reserve forces. They make a truly invaluable contribution to our defence capability and are, above all, an integral part of our military operation.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is tremendous excitement and enthusiasm on the part of all reservists, particularly those in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, at the new opportunities that they will get from the Reserve Forces Bill? The sooner it is passed, the better, so that they can get on with serving the country as they want to.
Mr. Soames: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and I pay tribute to the wonderful work he has done over the years, particularly with the Royal Air Force reserves, to whom he has made a magnificent contribution. I completely agree with him. We hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through the House, commanding support from both sides.
We are truly fortunate to be able to draw on the splendid commitment and skills of the men and women who serve with the reserves. The whole House will agree that their genuine professionalism, dedication and commitment are well illustrated by those who have chosen to serve in Bosnia. Nor should we forget that, even before the deployment of IFOR, there have been and still are other reservists from all three reserve forces supporting operations in the former Yugoslavia.

911
In addition to the formal process of call-out, members of the TA undertake short periods of service with members of the regular Army, deploying on operational tours and exercises. For example, last year, the TA completed a two-stage trial deployment to the Falkland islands. Many useful lessons were learned, and we have now agreed that TA platoons will regularly accompany Army units deployed to the Falklands.
The whole House agrees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, that we should make greater use of the expertise of reservists. My visits to reserve units confirm that they are extremely keen to be given greater opportunities to use their skills. We therefore plan to use reserves more widely in the future, particularly to support our regular forces when unpredictable commitments arise.
The House is aware that the necessary new legislation for this, the Reserve Forces Bill, forms part of the Government's legislative programme and was introduced in another place on 16 November. I look forward to debating it later in the year. It has received widespread support from those affected by it. It is practical and, I think, sensible, and I welcome the statements by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who has promised to give it a fair wind.
Before concluding, I should like to make a couple of disparate points. First, I hope that the House realises—and that the country realises—how incredibly lucky we are in Great Britain to have such a superb Army. At every level of command and throughout all ranks, the Army is exceptional in its personal and professional standards, in its team work, and in its highly developed sense of cohesion, identity, duty and obligation. This institution is a matchless asset. It is a great credit to the quality of the Army's leadership that, in a period of considerable upheaval, it has retained extraordinary and exceptional flexibility combined with greater clarity of purpose and endeavour.
It is undeniable that the United Kingdom remains one of the very few nations capable of playing a telling role in world affairs. Membership of the world's key organisations brings real and unavoidable responsibilities and obligations. We regard it as our clear duty to meet those obligations. An efficient, mobile and powerful Army is a vital part of those obligations, and that is truly what we have today.
It is quite true, of course, that the reorganisations of the past few years have inevitably extracted a price in terms of the pressure and upheaval that they have caused.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am sure that the Minister will join me in saying how fortunate we are to have such excellent manufacturers of military equipment. I refer, of course, to Land-Rover and to Marshalls of Cambridge and the Ministry of Defence's decision, announced today, to order 800 military ambulances. I am sure that he would wish to join me in congratulating both firms and their work forces on winning the contract.
Mr. Soames: I do, but I hope to say a little more about that if the hon. Lady will give me a moment. I acknowledge her interest.
912
The big decisions have been taken. The restructuring of the front line as set out in "Britain's Defence for the `90s" is complete, and the Government believe that the front line is now, in broad terms, correctly configured for today's uncertain and troubled world. Of course, there are always gaps where we would like to see more and there are difficulties and problems that we have to overcome; that is inevitable, but overcome them we shall.
The Labour party can indulge in as much convoluted arithmetic as it likes on the precise numerical strength of the Army and the exact—and usually greatly exaggerated—size of the recruiting shortfall. The real strength of the front line is not just a matter of numbers, important though that it is; it is the ability to do the business that matters. The Army clearly can and regularly does.
The re-equipment programme of the past few years is delivering, and will continue to deliver, equipment that enables the Army to operate at an exceptional level of effectiveness—AS 90, Challenger, Warrior and, towards the end of the decade, Apache. The Army, however, could not carry out its task without its essential support vehicle fleet, and I am therefore pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has today announced the procurement of some 8,000 new Land-Rover utility vehicles, about 800 new Land-Rover ambulances and a further 65 Pinzgauer heavy duty utility vehicles.
Sir Anthony Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that announcement, which will give great pleasure to Cambridgeshire in particular and to British industry as a whole. Does he agree that much credit for that wise decision should go to the care, courtesy and unfailing scrupulousness and sagacity of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is quite right. I have always found my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to be unfailingly courteous, extremely sagacious and not at all devious. I wholly endorse the points that my hon. Friend made and applaud the great support given by him and other hon. Members with a constituency interest in the matter. The decision taken by my hon. Friend the Minister will prove to be the right one. It is good news for the Army and, as my hon. Friend said, it will be welcome to Land-Rover and its sub-contractors, including Marshalls of Cambridge.
Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend accept that Securicor Steyr, which also put in a bid for the ambulance contract, had an excellent record in the trials? Indeed, its vehicle broke down only once, compared to Land-Rover's 17 times. Does he accept that that bid also had some merits, which made it a strong contender, and that that is why the MOD has shown such confidence in Steyr by ordering 65 heavy duty lorries for other purposes?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is correct. We have indeed ordered a number of Steyr vehicles. I understand that its bid was good, but my hon. Friend the Minister has come to his conclusion. It was an admirable and well-fought competition. I am glad that the matter is now settled. It is but one of the matters to which the House

913
will wish to turn its attention during a broader—and important—debate on the whole Army. I know that those decisions, which are worth more than £200 million and will sustain more than 500 jobs, will be welcomed on both sides of the House.
The soldier in the field on operations would tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were you to ask him—and he would be very pleased to see you—that whatever problems we have, and there are many, he has never been better equipped or supported. When the deployment of IFOR is complete, more than one third of the Army will be on, preparing for or recovering from operational commitments. At the same time, it will continue with the implementation of important, far-reaching and profound changes. I am extremely proud to be able to praise the loyalty, dedication and professionalism of all those in the Army, regular or reservist, which are unmatched by any other army in the world.
One does not become the best by accident and it is no accident that the British Army is one of the best trained, led and equipped—and undoubtedly the most highly respected—armies in the world. It is the aim of Her Majesty's Government to keep it that way.
5.15 pm
Dr. John Reid: In some ways, that was a comprehensive speech. I know that Tory Members are well read. It has always struck me that the mark of the great man is the capacity to combine the sweep of strategy with a grasp of detail. I was therefore deeply impressed with the manner in which the Minister of State for the Armed Forces could tear himself away from his analysis of the almost total integration of the social structures of Rwanda to respond immediately on the question of the bandstand at Twickenham. He has that mark of the great man.
In other ways, especially in the light of the past few weeks, it was rather an odd speech. There seemed to be no cloud on the horizon, and no attempt was made to raise an umbrella against the deluge that has been falling on the Ministry of Defence, and especially on the Secretary of State for Defence, since the beginning of the year. I shall return to that point.
I shall start with the subject of our service men and women, especially those of the Army. The Minister mentioned the vast array of operations in which the members of our Army are involved—from the Transcaucasus to the Falklands was perhaps the most graphic description. All hon. Members agree with the conviction and sincerity of his tribute to the troops.
The Minister pointed out that those same troops participate fully in the activity of the largest land army to be assembled in continental Europe since the end of the second world war. I think that he referred to it as an "historic operation". It is historic in respect not only of its size but of its objectives. He mentioned—it was worth mentioning, and he spent some time on it—the practical details of the products of the British Army presence in Bosnia: the bridges, the hospitals, the skills and, not least, the thousands of lives saved, directly or indirectly, by the production of roads and shelters.
We commend to the British people, should there be any doubt about it, the presence in Bosnia of British armed forces under the limited time scale and with their limited but extremely important objectives. They serve not as an
914
instrument of war but as a means of peace. Their task is not to take life but to preserve it; not to wreak destruction but to construct order. We are rightly proud of them, not only because they have, as ever, responded to the will of the House, but also because, by serving our national interests, they are furthering the wider interests of peace, justice, order and international law of behalf of the world community.
Those troops not only represent the practical reality, but are also a symbol of the challenge which defence planners and politicians in this country have faced for the past 10 years: to shape a post-imperial role for the British Army and the British armed forces. In referring to our "post-imperial" role, some hon. Members may point out quite correctly that that challenge is some 50 years old. If there were a watershed for the end of empire, surely the ending of the second world war and events in the years immediately following it—certainly until 1956—represented such a watershed.
However, in a sense, that period left us with no choice. At the time, Dean Acheson said quite properly that the British had lost an empire but had not yet found a role. Our role was imposed upon us and upon our armed forces by the cold war. It is only now, free from the burdens of empire and the imposition of a massive direct external threat, that we face the complex task of reformulating our response to a rapidly changing world, and, in the context of that response, reshaping our armed forces.
Our Army's presence in Bosnia does not represent simply a humanitarian mission or a practical, beneficial extension of this country's foreign policy: it is part of our evolving response to that new and complex world. The world is changing rapidly, and the complexities of the threats and the risks that our troops face are multiplying.
Of course, we take heart from the peace advances in Bosnia, at home in Northern Ireland and in the middle east. However, the recent events in Chechnya; the civil war in Georgia, which has reached a stalemate and has hopefully ended; the little reported war between Azerbaijan and Armenia—I know that several hon. Members have visited those countries—and a hundred other instances remind us constantly of the potential dangers we face from many directions.
Only this week, we were reminded of the dangers—if we needed any reminder—when researchers at Harvard university's centre for science and international affairs gave the latest of a series of warnings that the threat of nuclear disaster is probably as high now as it was at the height of the cold war, because of the smuggling of nuclear fissile materials and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The smuggling of nuclear material, terrorism, border disputes, ethnic wars and fundamentalist extremism—I will not rehearse the arguments, as they are well known to hon. Members—are only the headline dangers in a world that has been deprived of the icy stability of the cold war and the disintegration of the Soviet empire.
Labour Members have argued for some time that the Government have proved inadequate to the task of meeting those challenges. Naturally, the Government have denied that. I found it rather odd that the Minister offered no defence of the Government's policies, as opposed to defending the Army's operations, which I fully accept have a legitimate place in the debate. If any evidence were needed of the incompetent, bumbling, bungling,

915
incoherent and at times demoralising mess that the Government have made, we have seen it in the first two weeks of 1996.
I think that that is why the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had such a difficult time tonight defending the Government's record. I have no doubts about the Minister's ability and courage; he is an able and a courageous champion, and tonight he spoke in his usual stentorian fashion. In fact, he has become rather a champion of distressed gentlefolk of late.
He is prepared to ride out one day in defence of the heir to the throne, and the next in defence of the heir to the Conservative party leadership. Perhaps, tomorrow, he will have a whip round for the Duchess of York. However, even the Minister of State faced a daunting task in attempting to defend the Government's policy record, so he avoided it altogether.
I remind him of some of the comments that have been made in the past few weeks, not by dangerous left wingers on the Opposition Benches or by fringe groups outside this place, but by people from the establishment, who are reasonably respected by the Army and by the entire armed forces. The crescendo of criticism is so deafening that even the Secretary of State for Defence must hear it.
I turn to the remarks of Lieutenant-General Sir David Young, former General Officer Commanding, Scotland, in the Daily Mail of 12 January. His comments are relevant, because I know the strenuous efforts that the Minister and others are making to recruit to the armed forces. Lieutenant-General Sir David Young said:
"Were a bright youngster now to seek my advice on whether to pursue a career in the armed forces, I would sadly be unable to offer unequivocal encouragement".
In the same article, he spoke of
"increasing overstretch, insufficient training, bad manning levels, continual alterations and errors of judgment".
He referred also to
"cutbacks and changes which have severely weakened the structure and morale of all the services…a marked loss of continuity, shared history and tradition; all the qualities which inspire a sense of loyalty and cohesion".
That is a pretty comprehensive and damning indictment by a former GOC Scotland. Perhaps most damning of all were his comments on the tragic waste of talent in the Army. He said:
"Sergeants, sergeant-majors and officers … All top-rate soldiers…are choosing to leave the Army"—
not because of their age, as the Minister would have us believe, but
"before the axe falls on them. The traditional philosophy of 'my country right or wrong' is harder and harder to maintain in the face of politicians who fail to recognise the special commitment required of servicemen and servicewomen".
Rarely have I heard a more damning indictment of the Government's defence policy, and rarely have I heard such silence from Government Back Benchers when such criticism is levelled.
No sooner had the Minister's reputation on the Army been machine-gunned than another senior officer torpedoed the Government's policy on the Navy. The following day, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Nicholas
916
Hill-Norton—who I believe is known to the Secretary of State and to Ministers—warned that the Government have left this country
"a nation unable to defend itself".
I have no knowledge about Admiral Hill-Norton's judgment; I do not know whether he would know a creep if he saw one. However, he certainly recognises a walking disaster of a policy when he sees it. [Interruption.] Ministers are now intervening from a sedentary position. The Minister had 40 minutes in which to defend the Government's policy, and Conservative Members have been remarkably acquiescent in the face of stirring criticism from major figures in the military world.
If the Government will not accept criticism from the military or from us, what about the criticism of their friends? Yesterday, the Daily Express—I believe that it is now the new Daily Express; perhaps, like new Labour, it is turning over a new leaf—contained a very interesting editorial. I do not know whether Ministers have had a chance to read it; I do not want to embarrass them too much. I shall not read all of the editorial, although I know that my hon. Friends would like to hear it. I shall quote merely one or two lines.
The editorial states:
"under Michael Portillo's stewardship, Britain's defences are in danger of becoming a laughing stock".
Lady Olga Maitland: Absolute nonsense. Come off it.
Dr. Reid: That is what the Daily Express editorial said; I do not know who wrote it. It was probably some fifth-columnist red left-winger who has been working under cover at the Express since 1945 and has only now come out to undermine the Tory Government.
The editorial continues:
"Talk privately to almost anyone of any rank in our Forces and the inescapable message you will hear is the same. Their morale is rock bottom, and their faith in the Secretary of State for Defence even lower".
Five paragraphs later, the editorial continues:
"it demeans Mr. Portillo's office, making him seem nothing better than a squalid little estate agent".
Mr. Soames: In view of the generous words that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has extended to me, I am reluctant to say that he is making a total fool of himself. The Daily Express editorial and the extract that he has read from it is so idiotic, fatuous and so far from the truth that I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman would bother to introduce it into a serious debate on the armed forces. It proves his ignorance of affairs in the armed forces. If he believes that it is credible that he can say that the morale of our armed forces is at rock bottom, he must come to understand that that is fundamentally, totally and utterly untrue, devoid, null and invalid.
Dr. Reid: I do not mind the Minister calling me ignorant. Similarly, I do not mind him calling the Daily Express ignorant. I do not mind him describing colonels in chief as barmy or admirals of the fleet as being wired to the moon. I do not object to a GOC Scotland being described as having no appreciation of what is going on, or to the Minister rejecting the criticisms of Defence Committees. But has the Minister never considered, in the

917
face of all this criticism, from traditional allies as well as traditional foes, that perhaps that army is not marching out of step, but that perhaps he and the Secretary of State are the ones who are out of step?
I quoted directly from The Express, the Daily Mail, a former GOC Scotland and a former admiral of the fleet. If the Minister thinks that he can throw aside all criticisms by describing them only as the product of ignorance, he begins to take on some of the faults of his immediate superior. That will not bode well for him or for the armed forces.
Mr. Soames: I was at great pains to stress that there are always gaps, difficulties and problems. There are always things that, if we had the money, we would wish to do better. There will always be equipment that we would wish we could buy. However, the hon. Gentleman's portrayal of the armed forces is a travesty. It is not reality. Retired officers, however great and distinguished they may be, are not truly in touch with today's Army. I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand that what he is saying about the Army is a travesty. It is entirely untrue.
Dr. Reid: I seem unable to get through to the Minister. When he gets round to checking what I have said, he will find that I have quoted at great length others whose views, presumably, the Minister does not respect.
I shall talk also about recruitment. I have been warning the Minister for three years about overstretch, yet I have been accused of ignorance. He has talked about the average interval of tours of duty being 24 months. He used to refer to the minimum interval being 24 months. Tonight, it is the average. He has denied overstretch, as did his predecessors. He has been proved wrong, and he resents the growing public awareness of that.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman before I deal specifically with the shortage that has been created by the Government.
Mr. Garnier: I say from the bottom of my heart that I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Gentleman has thought fit to descend into personal abuse in this of all debates. I do not mind whether the hon. Gentleman is quoting others or using his own words, but it is a pity that, as I have said, in this of all debates he has felt it necessary to descend into personal abuse.
Will he comment on the Labour party's defence policies, and how they differ now, if they do at all, from those that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends and other Labour party candidates were espousing during the general election? Is it not right that, during that election, the Labour party was advocating massive cuts in defence expenditure—even greater than those advocated by the Liberal Democrats?
Dr. Reid: The answer to the last question is no. The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about personal abuse. I shall explain that the abuse levelled against the Secretary of State should not be personal. It reflects a political difference that I shall attempt to explain.
918
After 12 years of hearing personal abuse heaped upon the integrity and patriotism of Opposition Members by the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends, I am deeply moved by the sensitivity that apparently comes across the Conservative party when it gets around to defence. I have not engaged in any personal abuse. The only comment that I have made of a personal nature was in praise of the Minister of State. I have, however, quoted others.
I shall explain later why what Conservative Members consider to be a personal foible reflects political incompatibility between the views of the Secretary of State and the nature, history, tradition and ethos of the British armed forces, if the Minister will give me the time to do so.
Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to Labour party policy at the time of the general election. I do not want to talk about that. Instead, I shall ask a question. Retired officers, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, are saying that they would like more money to be spent on our armed forces. So would every officer in the armed forces. Indeed, everyone in the armed forces would take that view. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with those who say that they would like more? Would he commit his party to spending more on our armed forces in future than the Government are now?
Dr. Reid: I commend the hon. Gentleman to read the articles to which I have referred. It is not simply that those concerned want more—indeed, they are not saying that they want more. Instead, they are criticising incoherence, lack of planning, inconsistency, changed judgments and lack of training. They are criticising the planning that has resulted in a shortage of soldiers. Conservatives demean the argument by saying that there is merely a wish to see more.
The Minister talked about shortage of men, and—I give him this—said that it was not merely a matter of making soldiers redundant and then bringing in other soldiers to replace them because of shortage. I accept that there are age differences. I appreciate that many of the soldiers going out are older than many of the soldiers coming in. I understand that some units are up to establishment, while others are over-subscribed. At the same time, some units are under-subscribed.
We warned the Government, however, of the demographic curve. We told them that the cuts that they were imposing would result, first, in overstretch, secondly in shortages, and thirdly in the destruction of morale. We were told that we were ignorant. The Government said that we knew nothing about defence. If we were ignorant then for saying what has turned out to be right, we are pleased to be called ignorant again today. The fact is that we are still right.
A number of people, including Sir Michael Rose, have expressed reservations about the recruitment of soldiers for the infantry and other regiments through jobcentres.
Mr. Soames: On a point of accuracy, Sir Michael Rose has expressed no such reservations. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, he made it clear that he had expressed no such view. He made it clear also that he had every confidence that an important initiative had been taken that could go some way towards helping the Army.

919
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House in which areas the Army is short of training? Secondly, in what units that he has visited, or knows about, is morale a problem?
Dr. Reid: I am not here to report back to the Minister on any visit that I have made or on any comments that have been made to me. Similarly, I would not make comments from the Opposition Dispatch Box on what I have been told by chiefs of staff when I have met them. If I divulged that information, the Minister would be the first—quite correctly—to condemn me for doing so.
Let me stick to recruitment. The Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds making soldiers redundant. That is the first cock-up. The Government then find that there is a shortage of soldiers, and spend hundreds of millions on recruiting them. The Government then run down the Army's recruitment centres. When we are desperate for soldiers, there are no recruitment services. That is the second mess.
A press release last week proudly boasted—making a virtue out of a necessity, as we no longer have the resources to recruit people directly through Army recruitment centers—that recruitment will be through jobcentres. The Government have even made a mess of that. I have read the press release carefully. It said:
"By using the nationwide network of about 1100 jobcentres the armed forces are giving easy access to quality jobs."
What it did not mention is that, under current legislation, an unemployed person in receipt of unemployment benefit who unreasonably refuses available employment at a jobcentre can be financially penalised. That is the product of the thinking of the Secretary of State for Defence, in his previous incarnation as Secretary of State for Employment. Let me tell hon. Members in simple terms what that means. A refusal to accept a job at a jobcentre can mean a cut in benefit of up to 40 per cent.
The jobseekers regulations, which we debated as late as yesterday in the House, make the situation even worse. Under the regulations, anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months at a jobcentre will have to accept any job offered. I have checked the press release, the existing regulations and the Jobseekers Bill. There are no specific qualifications to the regulations that exclude the recruitment to the armed forces from their provisions. The published regulations are clear. Any fit young person on unemployment benefit who visits his jobcentre but refuses to accept the offer of enlistment in the Army could have his benefit withdrawn.
Whether by incompetence or intent, Ministers have introduced creeping conscription into Britain.
Mr. Soames indicated dissent.
Dr. Reid: The Minister may shake his head. He does not think that it matters. I am not saying that it was intended; it may just be incompetence again.
The Minister can tell us whether there are special arrangements, private agreements, informal assurances that it will not happen, but we want it in black and white, in published regulations, because we in the Labour party, the armed forces and the people of this country want
920
nothing to do with financial press-ganging. We do not want any creeping conscription. We want no element of compulsion.
I will give way now to the Minister if he will give us an immediate assurance that there will be no element of compulsion at jobcentres, and that that will be written in black and white by tabling amendments immediately to the jobseekers regulations.
Mr. Soames: I regret that such an important debate should descend into such unbelievable unreality. This country does not have conscription. There will be no compulsion. The armed forces do not want to recruit anyone who would not come willingly into their ranks. The proposition advanced by the hon. Gentleman is so fatuous, so idiotic and so stupid that it almost defies imagination.
Dr. Reid: I shall give the Minister another opportunity. Will he guarantee that amendments to the jobseekers regulations will be placed before the House, exempting the armed forces from compulsion and removing the financial penalties of the regulations?
Mr. Soames: I have already made the point as clearly as I could. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand it, there is nothing that I can do to help him. There will be no such thing as any of the things that he has described.
Dr. Reid: I am surprised that the Minister is not prepared to say that he will exempt that. There are a list of exemptions under the regulations, including conscientious objectors, people who are disabled, jobs that are unsuitable. It would take five minutes to draft a regulation to exempt the armed forces from compulsion or to remove the financial penalties for any young man or woman who goes to a jobcentre. I am surprised that the Minister will not do that.
Dr. Godman: It find it difficult to believe that these Ministers are so incompetent. Surely the Department of Employment must have issued guidelines to the managers of all jobcentres to say that they can only advise youngsters of vacancies in the armed forces. My hon. Friend should ask the Minister to ensure that a copy of those guidelines are placed in the Library. I shall speak to the manager of my local jobcentre in the morning to tell him that he only advises youngsters of these vacancies.
Dr. Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall be doing the same at my local jobcentre. There are some 161 clauses in the jobseekers regulations. I had hoped that the exemptions would be part of the regulations, but the Minister has declined to give us an assurance that amendments will be tabled.
The criticism and incoherence of what the Government have produced on defence over the past few years is a tragedy, because there could be agreement on both sides of the House on substantial issues, such as our commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as the cornerstone of our defence policy; the Western European Union being the European pillar; our approach, through intergovernmental means, to construct alliances abroad; and on joint activity with our allies and tri-service activity at home.
There is immense scope to build consensus in the House on central defence policy, but that will not occur if Ministers respond to criticisms that have been made

921
inside and outside the House merely by accusing those who make those criticisms of being ignorant, and claiming that Ministers are the font of all wisdom.
Lady Olga Maitland: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with a point that Conservative Members have been waiting for; we have listened now for half an hour. What is the Labour party's position on the defence review that it announced it would launch should it ever become the party of government? Would his party not be struggling to fulfil the commitments it gave at six Labour party conferences, which committed it to reducing defence spending by £4 billion—which, frankly, would gut our security?
Dr. Reid: Cuts of that size would. That is why we have never accepted it. That is why we are equally surprised that the Government made a 30 per cent. cut. The Government have implemented Labour conference decisions that we have refused.
On a defence review, our position is well known. I need not rehearse the arguments again. The choice is whether to have change that is managed and coherent, or to have change that is done through a series of piecemeal reviews—"Options for Change", "Options for Change plus 1", defence cost studies and a sell-off of housing. A full defence review and managed change would give a strategic signpost five, 10 and 15 years down the road, which would give the stability to our armed forces that they have lacked over the past few years.
On the philosophy behind the Ministry of Defence's approach to defence planning, the Department has a growing obsession with markets. It is focusing on meeting cost targets rather than the purposes behind the use of military force.
On training, which the Minister mentioned, the Army Training Organisation is due to become an agency on 1 April 1996, under the control of the Adjutant General. The office of the Inspector General (Doctrine and Training) is to be broken up—a decision omitted from the defence estimates 1995. There is a risk that it reflects a diminished commitment to bringing together the formulation and articulation of land warfare doctrine and its importation into a system of all-arms collective training.
Similarly, the Secretary of State announced on 14 July, in a statement on the outcome of the defence costs study, that there would be an increase in collective Army training in Germany of between 50 and 100 per cent. as a result of additional funds that would be made available to purchase range time. The intention to increase the six weeks of battle group training has not been achieved. At a time when the defence budget is reduced, military readiness is relaxed. I hope that moneys for training will not be a soft target to provide financial savings.
With regard to personnel matters, which were not mentioned tonight, for all its limitations the average operational tour interval would first appear to be the most objective measure of the actual levels of commitment of a proportion of army units outside of using targets relating to operational and formation evaluations—OPEVAL/FORMEVAL. However, providing that measure does not enable us to analyse the relationship between the commitments and the resources of the Army or particular arms in the Army. An additional measure of performance is necessary as the Army continues to adjust to the effects of the defence costs study.
922
The MOD sets its agencies detailed targets for annual performance and measurements of the outcome. Notwithstanding publishing the OPEVAL/FORMEVAL statistics, to which I have referred, there is no reason why it should not do the same for the performance of the Army if the Department wishes to be true to value for money in real terms, which is operational effectiveness.
Questions of procurement will be handled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) when he replies, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely say that there is increasing concern about slippage on equipment for the Army. The AS90 155mm howitzer had an original in-service date of August 1992, and the actual ISD is November 1993. An estimated over-cost of £33 million in a competitive contract is also illuminating.
The Bowman replacement combat radio system had an original in-service date of 1995. With a current ISD in 2000, Clansman is becoming increasingly vulnerable to electronic countermeasures, and lacks the data handling capacity to meet requirements for currently improved C2I systems. In other words, slippage in the actual provision of resources to the armed forces has operational implications which go beyond just the lack of use of new equipment, as I mentioned in the case of the Bowman replacement.
Equipment availability in the Army, even where it has been purchased, is disturbing. It is easier to evaluate changes in the structural readiness of the Army than the operational readiness because of the ambiguity in measuring the training of personnel and the working order equipment. Clearly, less quantifiable factors require monitoring when forces are more likely to be used.
Unfortunately, the Defence Committee's report on the 1995 defence estimates acknowledged that availability statistics from the Army battlefield equipment reliability return were
"disturbing even when allowance is made for doubts about their accuracy and the methodology used."
Although the precise data are classified, the Chieftain, Challenger and Warrior, which were all mentioned by the Minister, and MLRS, as of November 1994, had availability figures of, in some cases, barely 50 per cent. So the resources that the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks are apparently available only half the time, despite the fact that their full ownership is ascribed to the Army.
Those are a number of the detailed areas. I am sensitive to the fact that Conservative Members seem to think that I was making a personal criticism of the Secretary of State. I was quoting others who were. Let me turn to my criticisms, because those who think that the Secretary of State has some malevolence towards the armed forces for personal reasons, or that these mistakes arise because he is not an able, articulate, organised type of chap, are sadly mistaken.
The differences between the Secretary of State and the armed forces have arisen because of the contradiction between a free market fetish, or a free market fan, on the one hand and, on the other, defence and the armed forces, which require planning, strategy and collective esprit de corps—the opposite of the individualism of the free market. That is the contradiction that lies at the bottom of

923
the terrible incompatibility between the Secretary of State and the armed forces, not the lack of any personal qualities on the right hon. Gentleman's part.
Mr. Keith Mans: I am rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's last remark. I thought that the Labour party had now takenon and embraced the idea of the free market. Is he now saying that he has changed his mind again?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening. I referred to a free market "fetish". The Opposition do not have a fetish for the free market, any more than we have a fetish for nationalisation. We believe in a balanced economy, in which the members of the armed forces are appreciated, and where the traditions, ethos, collective planning and strategy are compatible with the thinking and philosophy of the Secretary of State.
We all know that the past 10 years have been difficult for members of the British Army and their counterparts in the other two services. Their numbers have been slashed by a third, their financial resources have been cut by a third, and, at times, morale has been reduced to rock bottom. However justified may have been the reductions in expenditure, they have often been imposed during the past decade with a mind-blowing insensitivity and incoherence.
We should all be worried about the growing feeling that the armed forces and those who previously associated with them lack the respect and the understanding of some of their political masters. There is a growing awareness of a struggle within the MOD; it does not take a genius to recognise it.
In some quarters, there is a tendency to diminish the ethos and to underestimate the traditions and spirit of the armed forces; to pay insufficient attention to their attachment to heritage, architecture and symbolism. That is a tendency which is intrinsic to the values of the economic extremism of the free market right wing.
People of extremist free-market tendencies are not at ease with an institution such as the armed forces, which puts honour above price. They do not understand a code of conduct which puts the benefits of the collective above the advancement of the individual. They are ill at ease with the suggestion that self-seeking is not in itself meritorious, and they are alien to the concept of individual sacrifice for the advancement of the group. They have become desiccated calculating machines who know the value of nothing while pretending to know the price of everything.
Of course, they protest their virility from public platforms, waving toy guns. But away from conference platforms, when decisions are made, when they brand all public expenditure, including defence, as unproductive, when they display the mentality of the 18th-century liberals who thought that the worst form of public expenditure was expenditure on defence, they cannot hope to have a binding relationship between their philosophy and the institutions which fall under their control.
I do not blame the Secretary of State. He did not ask for the job. He is ill fitted politically, not personally, for it, and we all suffer for him. The Secretary of State, who sets the agenda for the Government on defence, is a man
924
of that political philosophy. Thank heavens the day is not too far off when our armed forces will have a Government more attuned to their traditions and hopes.
5.57 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: The House will have been disappointed that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) lowered the tone of the debate which had been so robustly opened by hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I am afraid that the picture of gloom painted by the hon. Gentleman is simply not borne out by the facts. As the Chairman of the Defence Committee, I have visited many units around Britain—I dare say, rather more than he has. It has been clear to me that morale is extremely high.
There will always be a number of armchair generals and admirals prepared to fire broadsides and to criticize—that has always been the case—but the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon is far removed from the truth. He had to resort to quoting from newspapers such as the Daily Express. If one wanted to be critical, one could say that that proves only that there is a shortage of good quotes for a debate such as this. I had hoped that, when he returned to his script, there would be an improvement in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but that was just wishful thinking.
My hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute to our armed forces in the implementation force in Bosnia and to the people who earlier served in former Yugoslavia in the United Nations protection force. I endorse everything that he said. The other day, the Select Committee on Defence took the opportunity to visit the 14th Armoured Division at Catterick. We saw there the forces of the Queen's Royal Hussars, who were preparing for a second trip to former Yugoslavia. I have seldom seen a unit better trained, better equipped and better led and with such high morale. We wish those soldiers well, pay tribute to the work that they have already done, and wish them a safe return to this country.
My hon. Friend did not pay tribute to non-service personnel in former Yugoslavia, who are doing so much work. From the Select Committee's visits to that region, it was clear that the Overseas Development Agency is doing great work on the infrastructure there. I pay tribute to the civilians who have been drivers and workers on the relief convoys carrying humanitarian aid to former Yugoslavia and, we must not forget, to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has spent much of his recess time taking humanitarian aid to that country.
Former Yugoslavia is a tragic example of the sort of overseas operation that our forces are likely to be involved in following the end of the cold war. There are going to be joint operations with other nations in peacemaking, peacekeeping and implementing United Nations Security Council resolutions in a much more disordered and unpredictable world. My hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that, in such circumstances, the Western European Union will have a role in determining formations in Europe, but that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will still remain the benchmark of this country's defences. I welcome what he said about the progress that is being made towards meeting the 24-month target for intervals between operational tours.
Four weeks after my hip replacement operation, my doctor says that I should not be here this evening, so I hope that hon. Members will understand if I am not in my

925
place for the winding-up speeches. I hasten to add that I shall read Hansard carefully to find out the Minister's replies to my questions. I am sorry only that the welcome decision to order 800 Land-Rover ambulances was not made in time for my rush to the House to vote on the common fisheries policy just before Christmas, four days after my operation. Perhaps with Corporal Coull to see me safely through the Christmas traffic, I would have managed it. The House enjoyed the Minister's story and I hope that he will be using his boxing gloves to good effect on future occasions.
The Land-Rover ambulance meets or exceeds all the Ministry of Defence's operational and medical requirements, the technical specification and the reliability targets and it is less expensive to buy or run than its Austrian rival. I hope that the MOD will use the private finance initiative leasing option on contract maintenance and guaranteed availability. The Land Rover will also save money through the commonality with the MOD's existing fleet, and benefit from a global support network. All in all, it is a good decision, not only for our armed forces, but for British industry.
The Land-Rover order demonstrates that, when the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), told the Joint Defence and Trade and Industry inquiry that, in making procurement decisions, Ministers would carefully consider the impact on our long-term defence industrial base and on jobs, he meant what he said. That is why I want to comment on the industries that equip our soldiers. That Joint Committee inquiry was only the second time that departmental Committees had co-operated in such a way.
The inquiry was prompted by concerns about the United Kingdom's defence industries. They involved declining spending on defence equipment, fiercer international competition and the MOD's efforts to obtain greater value for money. The Joint Committee's view was that, for both defence and industrial reasons, the defence industries have a distinctive importance that justifies Governments looking beyond short-term, value-for-money considerations in procurement. In particular, they form a high-technology and high value-added sector with major influence on other parts of UK industry through the transfer of skills and technology.
Our report had three major sections: rationalisation and collaboration, research and development, and technology acquisition and procurement. Collaboration with United States companies remains important, but we considered that greater European collaboration was crucial.
The UK Government take a prominent role in creating a European defence market and the Committee welcomed that. Many defence projects are collaborative. In the White Paper on the defence estimates, there were plenty of examples of that. This country is collaborating with more than 15 other countries on joint projects. France is in the lead: it has 25 joint projects with the UK; Germany has 22 and the United States has 19.
The United States remains our principal rival in defence production and sales, but it is still an important partner and an important market for British defence industries. It is significant that, in 1979, when the Conservatives came to power, the so-called two-way street of reciprocal sales and purchases of defence products across the north Atlantic had a ratio of 10:1 in favour of the United States.
926
That is down to a ratio of only 2:1, which is a tremendous improvement, but the Government should double their efforts in trying to gain fairer access to United States markets for our defence products.
Our Committee emphasised the importance of research and development to the long-term future of the defence industries. Our main recommendation was for an R and D strategy extending beyond Government-funded R and D and co-ordinated by the MOD. Its aims would be to fill gaps in R and D in critical sectors, prevent duplication of effort, to disseminate the results of research to where they are most useful, to co-ordinate defence and civil R and D where worth while, and to maximise the benefits from international collaboration. We also recommended that the MOD be given a more formal responsibility to take account of the future of the UK's defence industries, and to maximise their contribution to the UK's technology and skills base.
Essentially, that industry involves leading-edge technology. It supports some 315,000 jobs, specifically in defence-related manufacturing, and makes more than £5 billion worth of exports a year. The position needs careful monitoring because this nation must never risk being held to ransom by foreign equipment suppliers in times of crisis. Our defence industrial base is therefore a crucial part of the country's defence needs and strategy.
Recruitment has been mentioned in earlier speeches. The Defence Select Committee is in the middle of an inquiry into manning and recruitment, but two questions have arisen, on which I would welcome the Minister's comments. With Army recruitment having fallen by some 5,000 in the past three years, is this the right time to close 133 recruiting offices and to hand over the task of recruiting to the 1,100 jobcentres? I want to be reassured that the jobcentres are ready to assume their new task. Why does the available research suggest that applications to join the Army have fallen by some 50 per cent. in the areas concerned?
My second question about recruitment relates to press reports about the Home Secretary's plan to reintroduce the so-called boot camps for young offenders. Is it not just possible that young offenders who are sent to boot camps rather than prison, given a short back and sides, clothed, well fed, housed, trained and able to enjoy sport and recreation, will conclude that more of the same—along with pay, and the very interesting job of a soldier—is better than returning to a life of crime and the dole? Is my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces reviewing the criteria for recruits to allow those who have been convicted of criminal offences—particularly young people—to be considered more favourably for membership of the armed forces?
Sir Jim Spicer: We hope that the airborne initiative, which has been so successful in Scotland, will be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom. It deals not with convicted young people, but with young people who are at risk, giving them a genuine start in life—not training them for the armed forces or running a boot camp, but combining employment opportunity with the guarantee of a job in local industry at the end of a 10-week course.
Mr. Colvin: Indeed: I have seen for myself what my hon. Friend has described.

927
The last matter that I wish to raise has been given considerable publicity during the past week. I refer to the so-called—I use the phrase advisedly—Gulf war syndrome. Our Committee reported on 7 November. Our report did not try to prove or disprove the existence of the syndrome, acknowledging that much more research was needed. I know that the Ministry of Defence is currently conducting investigations, and I applaud the fact that, according to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, it is taking the matter seriously. I feel, however, that the Committee's recommendation of a full epidemiological survey should receive a positive response.
At present, we are debating the issue in the dark, because no one knows for certain whether the so-called syndrome exists. Let me put the matter into perspective. Of the 51,000 British personnel who served in the Gulf, about 1 per cent.—550—have reported symptoms; I have been told over the past week or so that the number has now risen to about 700, and this morning, during a radio discussion, someone who is suffering from symptoms of the so-called syndrome said that some 3,000 people were affected. That is a worrying development. It seems that we are beginning to copy what is happening in the United States of America, a country that thrives on litigation. There are too many cases of "no pay, no fee", with solicitors trying to persuade people to have a go at securing compensation. We must avoid that at all costs.
Many figures have been bandied about in regard to epidemiological surveys. The Sunday Times spoke of a cost of £500,000, and of such surveys taking two or three years to complete, but I am assured by the medical research unit of Southampton university's epidemiology department that they could be carried out at a cost of about £100,000, and would take about a year to complete. That would mean surveying 10 per cent. of service personnel who went to the Gulf—about 5,000—and some civilians, along with another 5,000 who stayed here. Until that has been done, we shall not know whether the percentage who have reported symptoms are representative, or whether there is any real comparison to be made between those who went to the Gulf and those who did not.
Our Committee applauded the MOD's establishment of a medical assessment programme, but felt that it should be given more resources. I believe that 330 service personnel have been assessed so far, out of some 700 who have reported symptoms. I am, however, worried by reports from some units of officers being unnecessarily heavy-handed with people who have expressed a wish to be assessed. Now people feel that they may be putting their jobs at risk if they ask for an assessment. I want to be certain that everyone who is experiencing symptoms can be assessed, and that proper expenses are paid to enable such people to travel to Raughton, which may be a long way from where they are stationed. Alternatively, proper facilities should be laid on in NHS hospitals.
We should compare what is happening here with what is happening in two other countries that participated in the Gulf operations. In the United States, a third of 323,000 Gulf war veterans who have left the service since the Gulf war are now receiving treatment, and are involved in the US assessment programme. In France—significantly—there have been no reports of so-called Gulf war syndrome. None of the French troops were given the
928
multiple vaccinations that were given to our troops and those of the Americans. More work must be done on that, and comprehensive research must be done on the long-term effect of the combination of drugs that were used in the Gulf.
There must also be a full exchange of information with our coalition partners. We must accept that, in future, the risk of warfare and attacks on our country will involve chemical and biological weapons much more than nuclear ones. That will be taken into account in military training and practice, and we need more information about it.
During the past week, worrying evidence has been published about the genetic effects of the Gulf war on the children of veterans. Some 52 cases have been identified so far. I am aware that between 1 and 2 per cent. of children born in this country suffer from abnormalities or malformations, but I think that we must put such reports into perspective. That would be done by the epidemiological study for which I have asked. Surely we owe it to people who risked their lives defending freedom in the Gulf to establish the facts, to ensure that free treatment is available to all and to pay compensation if and when it is due.
Following the collapse of the iron curtain and the end of the cold war, in common with all NATO and former Warsaw pact countries, we have used the peace dividend to reduce defence expenditure—although, in cash terms, it has stayed about the same at around £22 billion a year. Our armed forces have had to undergo a period of difficult adjustment, but I am glad that they can now enjoy a period of stability, with a more efficient support structure, thanks to "Front Line First". The one thing that they do not want, which has—luckily—not been referred to, is another full-scale defence review.
6.19 pm
Mr. Richard Burden: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), because I echo much of what he said, especially that concerning the relationship between defence contracts and the health of British manufacturing and the recent experiences regarding contracts for military ambulances and other vehicles, and Land-Rover. I certainly echo his welcome for the decision to award the contracts for the 8,000 light and medium vehicles and the 800 military ambulances to Land-Rover. I should like to focus on the contract for the ambulances.
I suppose that I have to declare a number of interests. First, I declare a formal interest in that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union parliamentary panel. There is no doubt at all that many T and G members' jobs would have been affected by the success or otherwise of the contract. I also declare a much broader interest, shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because I represent a constituency in the midlands.
There is no doubt about the importance of manufacturing to the midlands. The automotive industry is particularly vital to the success of the economy in the midlands. The Rover group is certainly important. Indeed, the Longbridge plant is in my constituency. Behind the big manufacturers, however, there is a network of component suppliers all the way down the supply chain for whom a healthy automotive industry and a healthy manufacturing industry in general is so vital. There is no

929
doubt that manufacturing made the midlands, and unless it remains healthy, the midlands will not make it.
That is why so many of us have been disappointed by events over the past 15 or 16 years, which have caused the region's manufacturing base to suffer. Of course not only the midlands is important to the industry. The conversion of the Land Rover for ambulance purposes is carried out by Marshalls of Cambridge, an important specialist conversion firm. The Land-Rover deal is vital to British exports. Land-Rover is doing very well in its export performance in military and civil spheres. I welcome the announcement made earlier in the week of a new contract to supply Land Rovers to the Italian military.
Awarding the contract for our ambulances to a firm based overseas would have sent out some very strange signals. It is not that there is anything wrong with the quality of the Land Rover. It met all the specifications required by the Ministry of Defence, including its competitive price. Considering that the Government have been saying—apparently—how important it is to promote British exports and British industry overseas, it would have looked very odd if we had looked elsewhere when it came to awarding contracts which were vital to Britain's industrial and defence interests. Such action would also have been very strange since the Secretary of State for Defence showed his willingness at the Conservative party conference to wrap himself in the Union Jack, which to many was somewhat distasteful.
Mr. Robert Key: I am delighted by what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he reassure me that his local authority does not buy any foreign vehicles, and that his ambulance trust has no Renault or Mercedes ambulances?
Mr. Burden: I cannot answer for my local ambulance trust, because—unfortunately—like many trusts it is not accountable. To my knowledge the trust does not have foreign ambulances, but the hon. Gentleman should not take that as gospel. The trust is not as accountable as it needs to be. With regard to the local authority, I am pleased to be able to report that, when Leyland Daf was under great threat a little while ago, it was one of the bodies most active in supporting and promoting the existence of a healthy van industry in the midlands and the country.
It would have been odd had the Secretary of State continued with the Viennese waltz, but I am pleased that he did not and the contract was awarded to Land-Rover. It is important, that credit is paid not only to Land-Rover and Marshall but to all the people, as well as hon. Members on both sides of the House, who worked so hard to ensure that all the factors were taken into account and that the final decision went the way that it did.
It is clear that the Ministry of Defence is entitled to expect the highest quality products from its suppliers. It is also clear that the Ministry of Defence has to recognise the strategic importance of British manufacturing to the health of our economy. That is why it is important to learn the lessons from the story of the awarding of the contract. We should be looking for more pro-activity from Ministers.
930
While looking back over similar circumstances that have arisen, I was struck by an article in the June 1994 edition of the International Defence Newsletter. It is quite topical in that it describes events as far hack as the 1970s, as well as those more up to date. It says:
"In the late 1970s a military requirement was recognised for a lightweight 2 tonne military vehicle with excellent cross country capability including the ability to carry a variety of weapons systems."
I commend to hon. Members on both sides of the House the extremely instructive story told in the article. The procurement process in the United Kingdom was a catalogue of muddle and procrastination, but resulted in a vehicle being chosen in 1990. The article went on:
"Almost immediately the specification was changed to a new manual gear box and production delayed. From its very inception the old ghosts of Larkhill came back to haunt the vehicle. The Army were not at all happy with the performance of the vehicle and the order was reduced to fulfil the light gun tractor and Vixen radio vehicles only. Problems continued until two vehicles collided at Larkhill following brake failure. Now reports are coming in from Bosnia of vehicles having brake failure following the fitting of snow chains, in one case demolishing a house. The whole fleet is believed to have been withdrawn from service again and the Army is left to fall back on their one tonne Land Rovers which are now 26 years old."
Admittedly, that report is about 18 months old, but it is instructive in the light of recent events. Its point is to contrast the catalogue of muddle in the UK with the experience elsewhere.
Around the same time, a similar need was identified in the Australian Army. The conclusion drawn by the article about the process in Australia was:
"The Australian experience is a prime example of a contract driven by the needs of the user and staged upgrades introduced during the process of evaluation where new variants and derivatives are developed following operational experience."
The conclusion is that in Australia—what singularly failed to happen here with regard to the order that I have described—there was planning, partnership and long-term commitment. Even though things have moved on since that catalogue of muddle between the 1970s and 1990, some of the problems remain.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): That is why we were most fortunate to be able to recruit the Australian, Sir Malcolm McIntosh, as chief of defence procurement.
Mr. Burden: As I have said, I think that things have improved somewhat, but there is still room for improvement. The Minister was complimented earlier in the debate on his courtesy during the negotiations at Land-Rover, and I heartily endorse the compliment. When I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) went to see the Minister about this issue, nobody could fault his courtesy, and he listened to everything that we had to say.
During the discussions about the order—which have taken the best part of a year now—many of the actors who were crucially involved found it difficult to obtain information on exactly what problems were identified. I accept that Ministers are in a difficult position when engaged in a competitive process—there is no doubt about that. However, a balance must be struck between respecting commercial confidences and going into a defence contract budget purdah, in which it is difficult to

931
obtain vital information that could help to identify and iron out problems at a much earlier stage than happened in this case.
In addition to celebrating the award of the contract to Land-Rover, its export performance and the deal with the Italian army, it is important that we learn some lessons from the experience. There are three principal lessons to which I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members.
The first lesson—again echoing something said by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside—is the need to break down departmentalism. If it is possible for the Defence Select Committee and the Trade and Industry Select Committee to pool their resources and look at Britain's defence and industrial needs and produce a joint report, much more could be done to break down departmentalism in Government. I hope that some further work will be done on that. If there had been a little more co-ordination and co-operation, not only in this affair but generally, we could have avoided some of the problems that we have identified.
Secondly—again echoing what was said by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside—we need a far longer-term view of our industrial needs and their relationship to defence contracts and defence procurement.
Thirdly, we need a much more pro-active partnership between Government and industry that recognises that the Ministry of Defence has an absolute right to expect high quality but also recognises that the Government have a responsibility to British industry, its promotion abroad and for the safeguarding of jobs in the UK.
As we celebrate Land-Rover's success and congratulate everyone who has made it possible, I hope that we will learn those lessons and, in future, that some changes will be made which will enable us to avoid the problems that we have seen perhaps a little too often during the past year or so.
6.32 pm
Sir Archibald Hamilton: I declare an interest. I work for Litton, which is an American defence contractor, and W. S. Atkins, which does a certain amount of contracting work for the Ministry of Defence. I shall not, however, he making any reference to procurement during my remarks.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), and I am sorry that he did not find it possible to stay with us for a little longer. When I was a Defence Minister, he used to make rather witty, pungent and significant speeches. I thought then that it was rather surprising that he was not shadowing the Secretary of State for Defence because he seemed to have a lot going for him.
I must say that, after today's contribution—the personal abuse and inaccurate accusations against people—the Labour party has made a sensible decision to keep him in a much more junior post on its Front Bench. It is not good enough to hide behind articles in the Daily Express and letters from retired officers to try to put over views and then to say that they are nothing to do with him.
932
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, but I should tell him that there have always been complaints from retired officers. That has happened over the years. even when there were 3 per cent. real terms increases—which our Government inherited from the Callaghan Government in 1979 and ran on to 1983–84. Even during that time some retired officers complained about the way things were done in the Ministry of Defence.
One of the great triumphs of the national health service is that people live much longer than they did before, and that applies to retired generals. As time passes, they get memory lapses about what happened when they had to wrestle with all those problems. It may be something to do with the great effectiveness of the NHS that we continue to receive large numbers of letters from retired officers who seem to see things in much starker and black and white terms than the shades of grey that they probably had to wrestle with during their time in charge.
It is amazing that the Labour party continues the farce of hiding behind a defence review. I wonder how much longer that will go on. It is a charade and an excuse to produce no policies on defence between now and the general election. I am not sure that it will be possible to go on fooling the British people for that long. Eventually it will have to harden up a hit on all this.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North is back in his seat. I made a number of remarks about him which, I am afraid, he will now have to read in the Official Report. It is sad that he had to leave so quickly after his contribution. I should like to apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, because I will not be here for his closing remarks as I have engagements later on.
I join my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the warm tributes that he paid to our troops in Bosnia. That tribute applies to the tasks that they have been asked to undertake in the past rather than what they will have to do in the future. There was no doubt that the UN resolution for them to protect safe areas in Bosnia, when they had neither the equipment nor numbers with which to do it, was extremely arduous. In the circumstances, they did a fantastic and noble job. It seems that, with the much larger forces in Bosnia and the agreement with the warring parties, the role that they now have is much more sustainable than it has been in the past.
I am extremely encouraged that our troops have been occupying many of the sites and bits of high ground in Bosnia that were previously occupied by artillery formations of the warring factions. That means that the job they are being asked to do is one that they will be able to perform, and that they should, as a result, be in much less danger than they have been. That is enormously encouraging. We must hope that the peace agreements last and that more permanent arrangements can be made within the 12 months that I know everyone wants the mission to last. We must keep our fingers crossed.
Now that we have a massive NATO deployment in Bosnia, we will have many of the advantages of US technology with the United States troops there. At the same time, the United Kingdom brings the greatest expertise in peacekeeping. That is a result of what we have learnt and achieved in Northern Ireland. I think that there is certainly something that we can teach the Americans in that area, and I suspect that they will he quite grateful to learn because peacekeeping may be what will be happening more in the future.

933
Some of my military contacts—unlike the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, I will not mention who they are—are quite concerned that, if we do too much peacekeeping, we will run the risk of some of our soldiers losing the ability to fight. We must remember that armies are there to fight. They are not there to stand around like policemen, trying to keep warring factions apart. There is obviously a risk of degradation in their capabilities if they are to be involved in peacekeeping the whole time.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces mentioned the lack of volunteers. When I was in the Ministry of Defence, I took the view that as long as our main commitment for the Army was Northern Ireland, there did not seem to be a role for Gurkhas. As they were unable to speak good English and were a different colour from everyone else, they would have found it extremely dangerous and difficult to carry out tasks in Northern Ireland. However, if the Army continues to be involved in peacekeeping abroad and we are running short of volunteers from Britain, there might be a bigger role for the Gurkhas. I am encouraged that they have been used to reinforce certain units, but perhaps we could go further and salvage one or two battalions of Gurkhas who could effectively carry out peacekeeping tasks.
Changes have been made to ensure that the Gurkhas all speak English, and that is a critical element in making them more effective. The nostalgic tradition that all British officers learnt Gurkhali and spoke to them in their native language was not helpful to the Gurkhas, who need to speak an international language and communicate with others. If they are to have a role in the British Army, it is important for them to speak English. It might be possible to reconsider the future of the Gurkhas if we continue to be involved in peacekeeping abroad.
The United States continues to have a significant role in the deployment to Bosnia. That is important move as it cements the United States into European defence. Our European partners talk about European defence, which normally means the future of European politics rather than anything to do with defence. I am extremely worried about the underlying motives of the French when they talk about European defence structures, which are often used to squeeze the Americans out of any commitment to defence in Europe. That carries the most enormous dangers.
The Gulf war demonstrated the vast technological capability of the United States which is not matched anywhere in the world, and to divorce ourselves from that defence capability strikes me as absolute madness.
The United States is one of the few countries with an Executive system that enables it to take the decision to go to war. We know that there are large numbers of historical reasons for the construction of political systems in Europe, but there is no doubt that coalition Governments find it extremely difficult to take a decision to go to war. To cut ourselves off from the United States, with its technological superiority and a political system that enables it to take difficult decisions strikes me as absolute madness. The deployment to Bosnia is doing a tremendous amount to ensure that the United States plays a role in European defence for many years to come and that is an extremely satisfactory outcome.
934
Finally, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to our armed forces. Like him, I believe that they are the finest troops in the world and we have every reason to he extremely proud of them. They are a great institution, and I give them all my support.
6.43 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: There is now less heat in the debate than there was earlier, hut perhaps there is a little more light. The last two or three speeches focused on more practical day-to-day issues concerning the Army that certainly should be included in the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) is no longer in the Chamber. I wanted to welcome him back after his successful operation and commend him as a most distinguished successor Chairman of the Defence Committee.
As the then Secretary of State, now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, said when the defence costs study was first placed before the House, it was entirely different from previous reviews because its aim was to cut costs, not defence, and cuts in the front line were not acceptable. I am willing to accept that that was the intention of that exercise, but I am well aware of the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Since the defence study review, the Army has operated undermanned battalions and it now has a shortfall that is estimated at between 5,000 and 7,000.
Like others, I am well aware of the failings of retired senior officers, although I have to declare an interest in respect of Lieutenant-General Sir David Young, as he is a personal friend. He is a most distinguished soldier, who began his career in the emergency in Malaya and finished it as Captain Commandant of the Ulster Defence Regiment in Northern Ireland.
People who give up an activity in which they have been intensively involved tend to take into retirement a fairly strong view as to precisely how that activity should be managed. I can think of at least one activity that I have given up on which I consider myself the world's greatest living expert, although 99 per cent. of the population might take an entirely different view.
Having entered those qualifications, I have to say that, when senior officers feel compelled to go public, we should take account of the fact that they were compelled to go into print—that in itself must have some significance—although we should not accept that everything they say is exactly correct. Their comments often reveal the resonance in regiments—particularly when they have been closely associated with those regiments—of the feeling at the time and the response to change.
In civilian life, cuts in expenditure or the announcement of redundancies undoubtedly undermine morale. It would be curious if it were different in the armed services. I do not believe that morale is at rock bottom but, like others who have talked to senior commanders, I have been told that morale is fragile. The House and the Government should be concerned to improve it.
Much has been made on this and previous occasions of the now famous speech by the Secretary of State for Defence at Blackpool in October. I suspect that his reception might have been different if he had told the audience that there was likely to be a real-terms cut in the defence budget in the forthcoming year and the year after.

935
As I have declared in the House on many occasions, we have now reached the stage at which the House should say on an all-party non-partisan basis that we do not believe that there should be any further material cut in the defence budget in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman say that to his party conference?
Mr. Campbell: Not only did I say that to my conference, but I had its unanimous endorsement on the point. I suspect that such a commitment would do a great deal to buttress fragile morale in certain parts of the armed services.
I do not share precisely the same views as the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) on Europe, but I agree with other parts of his speech. The Defence Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee joint report calls for greater co-operation in defence procurement in Europe. I strongly believe that we must maintain a European base for defence technology and prevent the domination—I accept that that is a pejorative word—by American companies such as Lockheed and McDonnell-Douglas.
Some interesting developments have arisen from the efforts of some countries, which were previously members of the Warsaw pact, to join NATO. Some have found a steady procession of arms and equipment manufacturers at their front doors, saying, "You're a former member of the Warsaw pact and you're now anxious to join NATO. Has it occurred to you that if, for example, you bought the F16 aircraft, inter-operability would not be an issue?"
There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some American companies have been arguing vociferously that only if they buy American equipment will such countries be capable of fulfilling the requirements for becoming a member of NATO. Perhaps that is a measure of free market economics, but it is also a measure of the efforts that American companies are willing to make.
It is right to maintain a leading edge in critical technologies on a European basis, using collaboration with our European partners if necessary. Indeed, paragraph 26 of the joint report states that European collaboration is
"crucial to the survival of the defence industries of the UK and other European countries."
Maintenance of the technology base of the UK defence industries should be a priority. I do not shrink from the observation that consideration of that factor should be built into the procurement process from the initial stages right through to the decision to order equipment.
If I was making this speech on Capitol hill or arguing this case before an American audience, I suspect that I would have a ready response. The extent to which the United States Defense Department is open to ordering equipment from countries other than the United States is extremely limited and it is, effectively, practised only in relation to equipment from areas which the US cannot usefully produce itself.
A common foreign and security policy will evolve in Europe. It will be driven by economic as much as political means. At best static—and more likely reducing—defence
936
budgets will drive forward such issues as joint procurement and force specialisation as the only reasonable ways to meet the cost of advancing technology and to continue to provide a range of capability sufficient to meet all requirements.
It is worth reminding the House and the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that, when President Clinton came to the NATO summit approximately two years ago, he agreed to the notion of combined joint task forces—occasions on which the European members of NATO might feel compelled to embark on an operation of some sort in which the United States did not want to join and that, for such operations, European members of NATO would be entitled to look to the whole assets of NATO.
A European defence identity is not inconsistent with NATO or, indeed, with a continued transatlantic relationship. There are on Capitol hill many legislators who argue strongly that the strength of that relationship will depend on the extent to which Europe is willing to do more in its own defence.
I must deal with some issues that apply directly to the Army. At the outset, the Minister gave us an interesting piece of statistical information. If I noted him correctly, he said that we need to recruit about 15,000 men and women annually, which is a considerable number. One of the difficulties, to which hon. Members have not referred in the debate, is that the physical standard of recruits is often rather less than what is desired. To put it bluntly, young people are not as physically fit as once they were. It is said that some have never worn anything other than training shoes and, as a result, cannot make the transition to boots; some are pretty unfit.
If we have to meet a target of 15,000, implicit in that target is finding 15,000 people who are fit and capable of accepting the training and fulfilling the job once introduced into the armed services—the Army in this case. That is an additional obstacle that recruitment must overcome.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for taking up that point and acknowledging that daunting target. He is right—the physical fitness side is a source of anxiety to us. The other great difficulty is the fact that many more young people are staying in further and higher education—it used to he one in nine, and now it is one in three. We are automatically fishing, within a certain age group, in a substantially reduced pool. We shall have to direct our attention—and are directing it—to getting round that problem, and we shall have to direct our recruitment towards slightly older people.
Mr. Campbell: That intervention serves to emphasise the fact that the problem cannot be analysed on the basis of numbers alone. There is a qualitative element, which has to be analysed carefully and given such weight as it requires.
There is another problem, particularly with the infantry. Because they are required in Ireland and Bosnia and for public duties, the burdens on infantry men and infantry women—if that is the right way to describe them—are in some respects disproportionately greater than those on other units.
If there are shortages, the men and women who are left behind might consider themselves to be overworked and, as they would see it, not properly rewarded for the extra

937
demands on their time. To deal with that problem, we must deal not only with recruitment, but with retention. I cannot help thinking that we sometimes divide recruitment and retention as if they were two separate issues, but I am sure that they are two sides of the same coin. The greater the problem of retention, the greater will be the demands for recruitment.
The tours of duty that people are asked to undertake are often pretty disruptive. I have heard an allegation—I do not know whether it is founded on fact or purely anecdotal—that, in four years, a 26-year-old captain had six weeks at home. That may or may not be true, but we all know that it has not yet been possible to meet the 24-month target. That target has lain at the heart of the policy of the Ministry of Defence for some considerable time. If it is not being met, we can all understand the disruption that results to the personal and family lives of those involved.
One important influence when men and, increasingly, women decide to stay in the armed services is the extent to which they can look to their families for support. If families feel that the individual in the armed services is away from home for a long time, there is bound to be a more difficult atmosphere if he or she considers signing up for a further period of service.
No one has referred to homosexuality in the armed services, but the issue should be drawn to the attention of the House. In due course, we are to be told the results of the Ministry of Defence survey, which are clearly not available today or we should have heard them from the Government.
For my part, I believe that it is a fundamental issue of human rights. There is no justification for discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. I appreciate that that is not a popular view in many parts of the Ministry of Defence, particularly at the level of senior commander, but those who are so opposed will have to recognise—in due course, if not immediately—that public attitudes to such matters have changed and that the special circumstances that they argue for with regard to the armed services are increasingly difficult to justify.
Racial harassment is an extremely difficult topic. We know that only 1.4 per cent. of those in the armed services come from black or Asian ethnic minorities. I do not suggest that there is a direct correlation between those numbers and the issue of racial harassment, but there are from time to time some unpleasant reports in the tabloid newspapers and elsewhere in which unpleasant allegations are made of racial harassment in the armed services. I have often heard the Minister at the Dispatch Box pledge himself and all of those for whom he is responsible to do everything in their power to eradicate and prevent harassment. I believe that the issue is of greater substance than ever surfaces into public consciousness. There is no place for racial harassment in a civilised society, and there is certainly no place for it in the armed services of the United Kingdom.
On the matter of increasing opportunities for women in the armed services—and, in particular, the Army—I asked a number of questions recently about the sexual harassment of women. I was somewhat taken aback to discover that no central record of such harassment is kept by the Ministry of Defence, although I believe that it is proposed to draw up a system to maintain such records. If there are to be more opportunities for women in the
938
armed services, it would be quite foolish to ignore the possibility of increased sexual harassment. It would be foolish indeed not to take steps designed, first, to deal with those guilty of harassment quickly, effectively and efficiently and, secondly, to create an atmosphere and culture in which sexual harassment is regarded as wholly unacceptable.
There should be increasing opportunities for women in the armed services, although I know that there is a great debate about the extent to which women can be used in combat roles. I recall being driven in an armoured vehicle around the streets of Northern Ireland with the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) by an extremely competent 22-year-old female driver. If women are capable of being deployed in such circumstances—where a substantial element of risk is involved—there may be other circumstances in which they can play a fuller part in the Army than they have previously been allowed.
I accept that there are physical differences between men and women, but in terms of application and aptitude, many women are just as well qualified—if not better qualified—than men. If we are facing a recruitment problem, it would be foolish not to take the opportunity to utilise a resource in the form of the increased use of women in the armed services. That might go a long way towards remedying the difficulties created by the shortage to which I have referred.
Mr. Soames: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that there is no obduracy or lack of desire on the Government's part to see more women filling more jobs in the armed forces. A week ago, I visited the great explosives experts at 33 Engineer Regiment, which is sending a troop off to Bosnia under the command of an extremely bright woman officer. The problem is not obduracy or a lack of desire to fill posts—we are happy to do that—but there must be a sensible cut-off point between areas in which women can satisfactorily undertake duties and areas in which it is impossible for them to be deployed. For example, it would be impossible for women to be deployed in tanks in the Royal Armoured Corps—it simply would not work—but there is no obduracy on our part with regard to pressing ahead with the programme, for the very reason to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred.
Mr. Campbell: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I apprehend from the way in which he approached the topic that he agrees that this is an area in which, by a more sensitive approach, we might be able to deal with the shortage.
I do not want to say much about the reserve forces, because the Reserve Forces Bill has begun its life in another place and, in due course, will come to this House. It is worth recalling, however, that 1,774 reservists were called out or recalled in support of the United Kingdom forces during the Gulf war. This week marks the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the Gulf war, and it is worth pointing out how effective the contribution of the reserves was. As our armed forces are pared to the bone to meet the financial demands to which I referred, there is likely to be an increasing role for reservists, particularly those with specialist skills.
I support what the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside said about a commitment to a full

939
epidemiological survey of those who claim to be suffering from what has come to be called Gulf war syndrome as a result of serving in the Gulf. I do not know whether there is a Gulf war syndrome, but I certainly know that several hundred people who served in the Gulf now have a very debilitating illness. I am not qualified to say whether their service was the cause of that illness, but they are entitled to a high-quality investigation to seek to establish whether their claim can be properly evaluated.
I shall finish by saying a word or two about Bosnia. The Minister paid generous tributes to General Sir Michael Rose and to General Sir Rupert Smith. They were different characters, who interpreted and implemented their responsibilities in different ways, reflecting that substantial difference in character. I think that hardly anyone in Britain would not be able to recognise General Sir Michael Rose, whereas I suspect General Sir Rupert Smith could walk down Oxford street and never be recognised. I do not mean that either fulfilled his obligations in a less or more efficient way than the other, but they certainly had different approaches to their problems.
Both men deserve a generous tribute from the House of Commons, because they did not always receive the recognition that they deserved. In particular, General Rose was treated disgracefully by a number of American-based columnists, who rarely ventured beyond Washington or New York but who, from that rather safe distance, felt able to make pronouncements about the conduct of affairs by the UN in Bosnia. On occasion, those columnists—entirely without justification—were extremely critical of General Rose.
Now that there is a different operation in former Yugoslavia, it is our duty to be steadfast in support of the operations. I would go so far as to say that it is vital that the operations succeed. There is a clear difference between peacekeeping and peace enforcement, and the deployment of NATO forces—a considerable and, I think, almost unqualified success—demonstrates that, in the circumstances, enforcement is undoubtedly the only doctrine to adopt.
We should be unwilling to allow ourselves to be seduced into the view—often expressed by columnists who never went to Yugoslavia to see the extent of the UN effort—that the UN effort was a failure. Lives were saved, mouths were fed, utilities were made to function and, to put it bluntly, people were kept alive as a result of the efforts of the UN forces, including those from the United Kingdom.
We should ask ourselves how much more could have been done by the UN forces if they had had better resources, funding, intelligence and political direction; the failures in former Yugoslavia were not military, but political. They were failures based on Security Council resolutions, each of which was a masterpiece of ambiguity. They were failures caused by a lack of proper and effective political direction in Yugoslavia from United Nations officials charged with that responsibility. They were failures dictated by a ludicrous lack of resources for the objectives that the United Nations had been given.
940
The declaration that certain areas were to he "safe areas" has been mentioned. I supported that declaration, hut it was rendered virtually meaningless by the absence of adequate resources to make and keep safe areas safe.
Which is likely to he more effective: a patrol of two Warrior fighting vehicles painted white, with the United Nations logo on one side, or what is now seen typically—a squadron of Challenger tanks with immediately available close air support, backed up if necessary by 155 mm howitzers? We have only to state the proposition of resources and effectiveness to realise the extent to which our forces, and other UN forces in former Yugoslavia, were operating, if not with their hands tied behind their hacks, at least without the necessary tools and resources for the job that they were asked to do.
A matter that has concerned me is the NATO forces' attitude to war crimes and war criminals. I accept that NATO forces are not in former Yugoslavia to act as the investigating arm of the war crimes tribunal established at The Hague. I understand that the terms of the Dayton accords lay paramount obligations and responsibilities on those forces, but if it becomes obvious that evidence that might lead to allegations or prove that war crimes have been committed is being concealed, it should he within NATO forces' responsibility to try to secure that evidence, so that it can, if necessary, be made available to the investigators.
I appreciate that it is a question of balance. One can hardly expect NATO forces to go looking for such instances. If they did, they might spend a substantial amount of their time not only looking, but finding; but when such evidence is available, and when there is a risk of its being destroyed, the British public and international public opinion would be surprised if NATO forces did not take steps to preserve it.
Dr. Godman: I appreciate the difficulties of gathering evidence required by a tribunal, but might not a group of special investigation branch officers and military policemen from the NATO forces being brought together and given that task be the way to gather the evidence needed?
Mr. Campbell: I yield to the hon. Gentleman's undoubted expertise and experience in that matter. His service as a military policeman has been referred to. He suggests one way in which to deal with the problem; I am anxious only to establish the principle that NATO will not ignore such efforts and that, if such efforts are made. it will do all it can to assist.
As has been said by politicians of all the three major parties at various stages since 1992, all the armed services need a period of consolidation. Those who risk their lives for us deserve clear political guidance and sufficient military and financial resources.
Some people question the value and utility of these single-service debates. I still believe that they have a proper place in the parliamentary calendar as they allow us not only to question Ministers and hear the Government's policy hut, once again, to emphasise the important place that the armed services occupy in the life of the United Kingdom.
7.14 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: I refer to a letter written to me just before Christmas by Trevor Minter, who commands the first battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which has strong links with the north-east—it is based at Catterick—and is currently serving in Bosnia.
Colonel Minter writes that it has now completed half of its tour and says that it
"is in good heart and enjoying the challenge of contributing to peace in this turbulent land."
He refers to one company that removed a United Nations force from Gorazde and escorted it all the way to Belgrade, via Zagreb to Split, a journey of 1,000 km in extremely difficult circumstances. He says that the battalion's mission has constantly evolved during its time in former Yugoslavia. The area that it controls has grown to 13,000 sq km. It covers 257 km of confrontation line and is
"the most operational unit in the Army today."
The letter goes on:
"a lot of effort has been put into helping the local populace return to normality. The companies have repaired damaged houses in preparation for the winter, re-opened local schools, dug drainage ditches and the Battalion charity project has provided clothing for the needy."
Colonel Minter refers to the pleasure with which the battalion returned from the United Nations blue to wearing the Fusiliers' traditional hackle, and I well understand that.
Constant change has characterised the battalion's time in former Yugoslavia. Colonel Minter sums up his letter by saying:
"The First Fusiliers remain capable and willing to have a go at anything and have a high reputation for getting the job done well. We all miss England and look forward to returning to our loved ones after the tour. It will be hard being in Bosnia over Christmas but we are determined to do the job to the best of our abilities and look forward to the challenges of IFOR."
That is a far more typical account of the British Army today than what we heard from Opposition Members. That letter shows no sign of low morale.
Last year, the second battalion of fusiliers was based at Chester and exercised in Gibraltar, Hungary, Kenya, Belize and the Falkland islands. The Army is still a life of adventure for a young man. When that battalion goes to Germany later this year, the brigade will move to Poland for an exercise. It will be the first time that a British brigade has exercised in eastern Europe. John Wilsey, the present Commander-in-Chief of Land Forces, said:
"We have become the first port of call for the United Nations when they want a difficult job done."
It reflects great credit on our Army that, based on 50 years of confrontation with the Warsaw pact, it can take on whatever challenges there might he in the uncertain world now facing it. Like all our allies' armies, ours has been reduced by just over a quarter and reorganisation over the past few years has been a mammoth task. Fortunately, that period of inevitable turbulence is now coming to an end. It would be madness to reduce the Army further, whatever the siren voices in other directions say.
942
The November issue of Armed Forces Journal International says:
"Labor has been sphinx-like over its defense plans. All they have committed themselves to is a promise that they will carry out a defense review … With commitments to health, social security. education, and so forth, the cash cow of defense will he on the chopping block again.
Unless Labor is intent on overseeing deep cuts in military capability, it's difficult to imagine what new cost-saving measures would emerge from yet another defense review. All it would add is…damage to service morale".
That is a fair summary of the position if, God forbid, there should be a change of Government.
I am convinced that we must maintain the Army's high-intensity capability. If we abandon it, it will he a long and expensive business to get it back, in terms not only of equipment but of experience. Charles Guthrie, head of the Army, recently said that no army in the world was better equipped than the British Army. I would add to that statement by saying that no army in the world is better led than the British Army, which reflects the high spirit of all those who serve in it.
In recent years, huge sums have been spent on the finest equipment for our soldiers, but one capability that we shall need in the years ahead is just coming into service internationally—the capability provided by the J-stars system. I do not advocate a particular system, but we shall need that type of capability. For those who are not familiar with the initials, it is an airborne reconnaissance system which can provide an image of all the vehicles on the ground in an area of hundreds of miles. The system was proven in the Gulf and in Bosnia, and it would give a great advantage in battle to any army that possessed it. We must supply it to our Army in the future.
A special feature of our involvement in Bosnia is the enormous contribution we are making to the corps headquarters and the corps support system. Many of the 13,000 British troops there are involved in that vital role. No other European country in NATO could make that contribution. We are not contributing just the corps commander, but most of the staff in the corps, including a whole brigade of signallers. That is a great tribute to the capability of the British Army. Without that capability, NATO could not operate effectively in Bosnia.
We must determine a finite time for our stay in Bosnia. It is easy to get in and we all know how difficult it sometimes is to get out. It was right to set a limit of a year and when that time is up, it will be very difficult to go on beyond that time.
With change in the centre of gravity of the Army from Germany to the United Kingdom, there is obviously a need for more training in this country. Maximum use is being made of traditional areas of Canada, and now eastern Europe, but we must have effective training areas near the Army's bases in this country. In the north-east, that means increased use of Otterburn. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is in his place, and I am sure that he will wish to speak on this subject. All that I will say is that I support the case for a sensible and controlled development of Otterburn, so that the armoured brigade that has moved to Catterick from Germany will be able to exercise with its weapons nearby. Catterick, of course. is now the largest garrison in the British Army.

943
The Army still has a large requirement for fit young men, but hardly anybody in the population these days has a detailed knowledge of the Army. Many families have nobody who has ever worn a uniform. That is a great challenge for the recruiting organisation.
Inevitably, there will be conflict between the two types of people who serve in the Army. If a fit young man is looking for adventure, the last thing he wants is stability. He wants real soldiering and to see the world. However, the career or professional soldier is probably a married man. The wives certainly are the unsung heroes, as my hon. Friend the Minister said at the beginning of the debate. The career soldier wants a more stable life style, and there will be problems reconciling those different factors.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has hit on an extremely important point, which I was not able to deal with in the time available. One of the important recommendations of the Bett review, which we are currently studying, is the whole question of how careers should be divided. No young man joins the infantry to sit around on his backside all the time. He wants excitement and adventure and as many deployments as possible. Morale is so high because the Army is so broadly deployed. One of the critical challenges for the future is how we retain those people satisfactorily.
Mr. Trotter: My own view is that the Bett review provides a strategic background to that problem, but it will not be easy to solve.
I hope that the recruitment through the jobcentres will work. I thought that it was ridiculous to suggest, as the Opposition have, that people who visit jobcentres would be made to join the Army. No employer has to take on anybody he does not want to take on and that applies as equally to the Army as to any other employer. I have never heard such an absurd suggestion. There must be a close link between the jobcentres and the military. The ethos of the military must be put over by somebody who actually believes in it and has experience of it. That should be taken into account when we rely more in the future on jobcentres.
I welcome the decision to bring back the junior soldiers and the junior leaders training regiments. History has shown that they have provided very sound men to the Army and I am sure that they will do so again. Similarly, the increased support for the Army cadet force is welcome. It has played an important role in inculcating the right attitude in young people who do not go into the Army, but experience adventure and discipline in the cadet force. They go into civilian life with benefits that they will never lose. The cadet force also provides many good recruits for the Army.
In Northumbria, John Stevens, the chief constable, is encouraging his officers to serve as instructors in the Army cadet force. That is a commendable initiative.
In an uncertain world, we can be certain that the British Army will continue to he challenged to respond rapidly to difficult and dangerous tasks. We can also he certain that the men and women who form the Army will respond with great professionalism and skill, as they always have in the past. The Army is a great asset to Britain and is rightly respected in this country and all over the world.
7.24 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I pay tribute to the Army in Bosnia. It is still performing a vital task for peace and I wish it good luck in its continuing work there. That is the end of my consensus with the Minister's statement.
I want to raise two issues about the Army, for which the Ministry of Defence should he accountable. The first was referred to in The Observer on 14 January in an article entitled "Gulf of Despair" by its defence correspondent Peter Beaumont. It is about the fifth anniversary of the Gulf war and the performance of the British forces. I hesitate to read it after the treatment my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) got for quoting the Daily Express. God knows what I will get for quoting The Observer. However, Peter Beaumont's words are relevant to the debate. He wrote:
"The mustering of armed forces for the Gulf had revealed the unthinkable. The four British armoured divisions on the Rhine, whose jobs for decades had been to help protect Europe against the towering might of a Red Army onslaught, proved so ill-maintained that the best Britain could muster was a single armoured division—and only after cannibalising its remaining Challenger tanks for spares. Once deployed in the Gulf, there were more shocks. The Challengers broke down so often that the RAF had to organise a 'Red Star' service to supply a stream of spares. Vickers, the manufacturers, had to deploy civilian engineers to the war zone to keep the tanks going.
It got worse: some British tank crews, it was discovered, had not fired their tank's main gun for two years.
'It was an absolute scandal,' said a senior officer involved in the planning of the Gulf war. 'It was one of the great lies. Suddenly we discovered that although the taxpayer had been stumping up for this force in Germany for years, it was only 23 per cent. effective and a large number of the crews hadn't even trained with their own weapon."
He continues:
"It was ironic. The Tories, the party of strong defence had allowed the armed forces to become so overstretched that the country's reputation as a serious military player was on the line … It had become horribly clear that if Britain committed its tanks to battle in the Arabian sands, she ran the risk of losing the effective strength of the entire British Army on the Rhine."
What an indictment of the Tory mismanagement of our nation's defences and the lack of accountability and the great secrecy of the Ministry of Defence.
The taxpayer has been ripped off for years by the arms manufacturers who supplied, at high cost, a lot of relatively poor equipment. We should get more than ministerial bluff as a response to the indictment in that article.
The second issue that I wish to raise in my short contribution comes from the programme "Face the Facts" on Radio 4 on 18 May 1995. The programme dealt with the shabby treatment meted out to service men, who suffered through the incompetence and stupidity of their comrades, especially those maimed or even killed by what the Army calls negligent discharges—weapons triggered recklessly or in avoidable accidents.
I refer to two cases that were discussed in the programme. The first concerned Gunner Bob Smith, who was taken to hospital after being shot. He had massive internal injuries; the guard who shot him, Gunner Sean Bennett,
"was handed over to the civil police and subsequently appeared in court where he admitted unlawful wounding. It then emerged that the shooting was a prank which had gone wrong. At the time he

945
pulled the trigger, Gunner Bennett hadn't realised there was a round in the firing chamber. He was sentenced to a year's youth detention. Gunner Smith got a life sentence in a wheelchair."
The programme presenter went on to point out that Gunner Smith was formally discharged from the Army on medical grounds on 31 June last year. Gunner Smith said:
"It makes me so angry that the MOD can more or less wipe their hands of it because … First of all, they employed me, they employed the man that shot me—they gave him the weapons to use, they put him on guard. It seemed to me they were the only ones that could be held responsible."
But the MOD refused to accept responsibility. At the time of the programme, some two and a half years after the shooting. it was still considering the question of liability.
Gunner Smith's solicitor, Hilary Meredith, claims, after having handled dozens of such cases, that getting the information from the Army that she needs to pursue legal claims is often the toughest part of the process. The programme quotes her as saying:
"We have no access to witnesses, we have no access to any information as to how these accidents happened until there is a Board of Inquiry and that can take up to two years. As far as locating witnesses are concerned, the MOD have a system whereby we will write to the witness in a sealed envelope, send it to the Ministry of Defence and they will try and locate him and pass on the … paperwork. It is then up to the witness to contact us. I've never yet had a witness that comes forward under those circumstances."
What a farcical system it is.
"Face the Facts" continued with the tragic case of Corporal Neil Hughes, who served with the first battalion of the Duke of Wellington's regiment:
"His father had been the Battalion's Regimental Sergeant Major and Neil had followed proudly in his footsteps … Neil Hughes was an exemplary soldier … On the 21st September 1993, Corporal Hughes set off for what was supposed to be a routine mock battle on Salisbury Plain."
Later that day, his wife was informed that her husband had been accidentally shot on the range and was undergoing surgery. Later again, she was told that he had died.
There was no Army board of inquiry. Corporal Hughes's wife was given very few details about how he had come to be shot.
"It wasn't until the civil inquest, a full year later, that she sat in a coroner's court and heard how her husband had fallen in a hail of bullets as an ill-planned war game went tragically wrong. It was only then, as she sat sobbing in an open courtroom that she was allowed to know that her husband's last words in a bloodstained trench were for her and the child. So damning was the evidence that the mock battle had been poorly planned and executed, leaving troops at risk, that the jury decided Corporal Hughes had been unlawfully killed. But so far as his widow and her lawyers have been able to discover, no action has been taken against anyone involved in the exercise. And to this day, there's been no Army Board of Inquiry."
The programme went on to say that there will almost certainly be no board of inquiry at all. In response to questions from the BBC, the MOD said that all the facts had been established during the coroner's inquest, so no board of inquiry was required:
"The statement added that the Ministry accepted the finding of unlawful killing and that those involved had been dealt with at the time. The statement did not say who they were, how they were dealt with or what. if any punishment they received. All this came as news to Mrs. Hughes. No one, it seems. thought to tell her those facts and it was left to us"—
the BBC—
"to do that just a short time ago."
946
Mrs. Hughes told the programme:
"It has been nearly two years since my husband's death and this now just puts me hack to square one. I'm no further on now today than I was the night he died. I just find it diabolical that everybody else—a radio station—anybody else can find out this information which me as the widow should have been told first and I still don't even know it from the MOD. I have still heard it second-hand. as I have done everything else. I just feel again that I have been excluded whenever I should have been the main one."
The programme presenter asked Mrs. Hughes:
"And what are your views on the way the Ministry of Defence has handled this?"
She replied:
"I just feel it's been so cold and callous towards me and my family. I think it's horrendous. He died carrying out their work and it's like they have just pushed him away."
This is just one example of the lack of human feeling in the MOD and of the callous way in which it treats former soldiers and their families. Money and meanness are at the root of it all. Denying responsibility at all costs seems to be the MOD's motto.
We have heard other examples in this Chamber, relating to nuclear test veterans, Gulf war syndrome victims and so on, which show that the MOD always tries to avoid accepting responsibility. I say to Ministers and the MOD: get a human face.
7.35 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: We are all devoted to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). He is one of the most agreeable Members of the House. There is no greater champion of the underdog and the unfortunate. I am certain that Ministers will take careful note of the radio programme to which the hon. Gentleman clearly listened so closely, always bearing in mind his great sincerity—even if he is often hopelessly wrong. More generally, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will broaden his reading somewhat beyond The Observer. If he does so, his attitude may change.
I am one of the declining band of old soldiers still in this House. I have worn my regimental tie for this occasion—
Mr. Soames: I am one of them, too.
Sir Anthony Grant: I seem to recall that my hon. Friend belonged to a junior regiment, yes.
In my day, the British Army was undoubtedly the finest in the world. I have no hesitation in saying that the modern Army is much better, and much more efficient. It has to deal with much more sophisticated equipment. and it needs to be more technically sound than it was in my day. A soldier in my day who had some mechanical ability and was very fit could, with luck, get into the armoured corps. If he lacked that ability, but was very fit and could shoot, he could get into the infantry. If he had none of those qualities, he was put in the cookhouse.
But these days, the modern soldier has to be highly efficient. I join in the Minister's justifiable tribute to the armed forces and the modern soldier, and the role that they play.
When the cold war ended, everyone understood that our defensive strategies and policies would have to change. But that did not mean a declining role for the Army. On the contrary, it has, if anything, played an increasing role

947
since then throughout the world. George Orwell's forecast has come true. He predicted in his novel "1984", written in the 1940s, that there would be no more global war—world wars were done for—but that there would permanently be regional wars all over the world.
That is precisely what has happened, in the Falklands, in Brunei, in the Gulf, in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. The British Army has had to be engaged in all those places, and it is fortunate for us and for the peace of the world that it has been so engaged. I was critical of some the political decisions made when we intruded into the Balkans affair, but, having made those decisions, it is fortunate that the British Army, which is the best in the world in this respect, is there carrying out a remarkable task with the utmost efficiency.
The British Army deserves the best equipment and service that it can obtain. The best equipment is not necessarily made in Britain. A good case can be made that, if the Army needs the best, equipment may have to come from abroad. The broad principle we adopt in procurement, as I understand it, is that, while we are not chauvinistic or xenophobic—as the French and Americans all too often are—where the price and quality are roughly equal in a defence contract, the balance should be tipped in favour of domestic industry.
I am therefore glad about the decision to give the contract for the 800 ambulances to Land-Rover and Marshalls, and I pay special tribute to the MOD for that. My interest is chiefly in Marshalls, which makes the ambulance body for the Land-Rover vehicle. It would be fair to say that the expertise and quality of the part of the ambulance made by Marshalls perhaps tipped the argument in favour of the contract being given—as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement so wisely gave it—to the Land-Rover and Marshall consortium.
I repeat how impressed I have been with the impeccable way in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has handled the whole delicate matter. He has listened patiently to the arguments from all sides. He has met me, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who has Marshalls in his constituency, and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who has joined forces across the party divide and has part of Marshalls in her constituency. He listened to the arguments with great care, sagacity and, if I may say so, great inscrutability and total fairness. I commend him for taking his time and finally coming to a decision that is in the interests of the British Army and the services as well as of British industry, whether in Cambridge or the midlands.
The decision has been taken for three reasons in particular. First, the price of the British bid was lower than that of the Austrian hid. That is an important consideration when there are constraints on finance. Secondly, while it is a horrible word, commonality of services, equipment and spares is immensely important. Thirdly, the Land-Rover Marshall vehicle is wanted by the medics themselves. They are the people who have to work in them, and they have much closer contact with them than do high-powered committees, no matter how grand. in the MOD. On all those grounds, the decision was wholly justified. I commend the Government for that. There is great delight in Cambridge about it.
948
We have heard a lot about morale. As an old soldier, I know that there has never been a time since the dawn of mankind when the British Army has not grumbled. When it has grumbled, it has nearly always done its task well. There has never been a time when it has not had a thoroughly healthy contempt for politicians, no matter what their party.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Quite right.
Sir Anthony Grant: That is absolutely right, but what is more, the Army will serve; it will do its duty wherever it may be, no matter what king reigns or which party rules. I have had not only a father, uncle and two cousins who served in two wars, but a son-in-law who was until recently an officer in the Royal Artillery. I am satisfied that there is nothing wrong with the morale of the British Army or the British soldier. No matter what party or politicians are in power, they will do their duty by their Queen and country.
7.44 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is an unusual privilege nowadays to follow an honourable old soldier in these debates, because there are so few fellows of that sort in the House. There are one or two ex-cavalry officers, but we will leave them in silence.
Earlier, I said that it was a real pleasure and privilege last Friday evening formally to open the Army Cadet Force hall at Highholm street, Port Glasgow. I put it on record that Colonel Gallagher, Major Wilson and Staff Sergeant McCafferty have produced a very fine unit of intensely keen, smart young soldiers, who wear, it will not surprise some people to hear, the cap badge of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, which recruits extensively in my constituency and neighbouring ones.
As part of the formal opening, I was asked to inspect those young soldiers. I think that I still have something of a keen eye. They were well turned out, and their boots gleamed. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that some youngsters today are unfit and only ever wear trainers. I invite him to Port Glasgow to see the youngsters in their Argyll and Sutherland Highlander's uniforms. I also sat in on map-reading exercises and first-aid training, and was even daft enough to have a go on the range. I fired six or seven rounds at a target. My marksmanship left a lot to be desired, I regret to say.
As I said earlier to the Minister of State, those youngsters and Colonel Gallagher and his officers and NCOs are poorly equipped. I accept what the Minister said, but the .22 rifle that I used to fire in the general direction of the target was as heavy as the old Lee Enfield .303 that I trained with all those years ago. I do not usually go in for special pleading, but I ask that a fresh examination be conducted into the way in which such units are equipped.
Many of the youngsters involved are from difficult areas of my constituency that are characterised by massive unemployment. Many of their fellows at school or work are misusing or experimenting with drugs. The youngsters that I met are not, although I caught one of them smoking

949
round the back and, as an ex-smoker, I read him the riot act. It is marvellous to see such youngsters in the cadet force, but their equipment could be improved.
I must absolve Colonel Gallagher, Major Wilson and Staff Sergeant McCafferty from my special pleading. They did not know that I would speak this evening, although they might have had a good idea. They are not part of this—
Mr. John Home Robertson: Conspiracy.
Dr. Godman: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is a one-man conspiracy.
It gave me a lot of pride, as their Member of Parliament and an ex-military policeman, to see how smart and enthusiastic those youngsters were. Even if they do not join the Argylls, or another regiment, such as the Royal Scots or the Kings Own Scottish Borderers, they are being taught disciplines and skills that will serve them well in whatever work they undertake. They are taught the discipline that is needed to perform their duties. They are being taught the essentials of comradeship, which is important in any kind of work. However, I believe that they should be better equipped, as, to put it bluntly, their resources were very poor.
I am not happy about Army recruitment by way of the jobcentre. I much prefer recruitment through recruitment officers. Last Friday, I spoke with a company sergeant-major in the Scots Guards who has wide recruitment experience, and he said that it is the best way. Youngsters should go to a recruitment centre to meet professional soldiers, who will give them advice from the shoulder. That is what they need if they are thinking of joining the armed forces.
In the morning, I shall check with the manager of the Greenock job centre, Mr. Ian Pollard, to determine what guidelines he has been given by his superiors in Edinburgh and London. I have no objection to the staff at my local jobcentre advising youngsters about careers in the armed forces, but that is where their role must end. What sort of training or induction procedures have jobcentre staff received to enable them to advise youngsters about careers in the services? Such careers may be very fulfilling, but I do not believe that jobcentre staff should perform the recruitment function. Next week, I shall visit my local jobcentre and make my views known.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East touched upon the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces. I have a good deal of sympathy for his remarks, but I was not always so sympathetic. As a military policeman, I recall patrolling the Sennelager area in what was then west Germany and encountering a young soldier engaged in an act of sodomy with a German civilian. I found it completely repugnant, and I believed that that young soldier deserved to serve at least five years in Colchester.
He received the most vicious bullying while in the guardroom. I recall telling the regimental police sergeant—in the presence of a couple of my colleagues, because I ensured that I had witnesses and he did not—that, if ever I saw him in a guest house or in a bar in Sennelager or elsewhere, I would lift him, even if he were only sniffing the barmaid's apron. I was appalled by the way in which that young soldier was treated. Now, I adopt
950
a much more mature and detached attitude to the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces, and I am keen to see the review when it is published.
I now refer, as did to the hon. and learned Gentleman, to harassment. In the middle of last year, a young female constituent, who was very keen to rejoin the Army, came to see me. She had been stationed in Lichfield, and she said that she had suffered both sexual and racial harassment. Her English squad corporal had complained nastily that her west of Scotland accent was incomprehensible, and told her that she had better do something about it. She was subjected to that sort of bullying for a fairly lengthy period.
I brought the case to the attention of the Minister and his ministerial colleagues, and received a sympathetic hearing. The young woman asked me not to take the case any further. She has been discharged from the Army on health grounds, but when her health recovers she hopes to re-enlist. I hope that she will not be discriminated against in any way because she had the temerity to approach her Member of Parliament and complain about harassment.
As a young soldier, I experienced bullying. That is not to say that military policemen ever bullied anyone—at least, not in my presence—as we were too decent for that. Bullying in the barracks will never be eliminated. Nevertheless, I am pleased with the way in which the Ministry of Defence is dealing with that serious problem. Youngsters who are perhaps 200 or 300 miles away from home for the first time do not want to be harassed by bullying squad corporals or other soldiers. It is right and proper that the Ministry of Defence should take the matter very seriously.
Regretfully, I believe that the Ministry of Defence and the Army failed my young constituent. I hope that, if she re-enlists, her application will be treated with the utmost sympathy. The Minister or his officials will know the girl's name, her regimental number and other details.
I am also very concerned about what appears to be the policy of reinstating in regiments men who have committed acts of violence. I never approved of the reinstatement of the soldier Clegg. As a redcap, I witnessed some appalling acts of violence, and I saw women who had been raped and viciously beaten. When a regular soldier is convicted and serves a sentence, I do not believe that he should be re-engaged. A soldier who is guilty of committing an act of violence should be discharged ignominiously.
Sir Jim Spicer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not attempting to class Private Clegg with people who deliberately commit criminal acts. Private Clegg acted in the line of duty, and many people, including me, believe that he was innocent and should not have been found guilty.
Dr. Godman: I do not wish to introduce a note of controversy into the debate, but I disagree completely with the hon. Member. Private Clegg was charged with and convicted of murder. I should like to see the charge of culpable homicide introduced into the Armed Forces Bill. We have that charge in Scotland, and I think that it makes much more sense than having the two charges of manslaughter and murder. I am not a member of the Standing Committee that will scrutinise and amend the legislation.
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend may be.
Dr. Godman: I must be careful what I say; I thought that I could speak with confidence, but perhaps hon. Members have not yet been chosen to serve on the Committee.
It seems to me that the charge of culpable homicide is worthy of scrutiny, and perhaps the Bill should be amended to include it. I stand by what I have said: those who inflict violence upon civilians and others are not worthy of their cap badges, and they should be discharged.
Finally, I too offer my compliments to our soldiers stationed in Bosnia and elsewhere. I think that British infantrymen—I suppose that I should add, also their comrades in the cavalry regiments—are among the finest peacekeepers in the world. That view was expressed to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and me at the United Nations recently. In discussions with me, United Nations officials spoke very highly of our soldiers. Discipline, training and their experience in Northern Ireland have made our soldiers among the finest in the world. That means that they must receive the very best of training. They must be as well equipped as any army in the world. Their family concerns need always to be treated with the utmost sensitivity, especially when requests are made for compassionate leave. Such requests must never be ignored. The good officer and the good NCO—NCOs run our regiments anyway—are always conscious of such matters. The Ministry of Defence has an important role to play when issuing guidelines to commanding officers and others on the family needs and concerns of our soldiers.
8 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words.
We have heard about the changes that have taken place in the Army over the past five years, which have been highly significant. From 160,000 officers and men and women, we are now down to about 112,000. Any organisation that has seen that much change over a relatively short period will have experienced problems. In my view, however, the problems in the Army have been dealt with especially professionally by the Ministers involved, including my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is no longer in his place. The same can be said of all the service personnel who have been involved in making the consequent changes.
The British Army was a professional organisation at the start of the changes, and it remains so. Along with a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would have wished the changes in the Army to take place over a longer period. I welcome some of the reassurances that we have received. We have been told that the changes are at an end, and that the Army, like the other two services, can look forward to considerable stability over the next few years.
Several hon. Members have talked about the problem of recruitment. I am convinced that, at the start of the process of change five years ago, few people involved in the Army—the same can be said of those outside—recognised that there would be such a problem. Most Army personnel thought that, by reducing the size of the Army to the extent that we have, there would be no problem in recruiting the fewer men and women who would he required. That has not been the case. I suspect
952
that one of the reasons is that people outside in the community also thought that the Army did not require many recruits. As a result, the Army no longer seemed the career that previously people had considered it to be.
The changes that have taken place in the pattern of recruitment should have been thought through a little more carefully. I have nothing against jobcentres providing advice to those who wish to go into the three services. I would have wished, however, that the information provided in the jobcentres was available before some of the career offices were shut.
It is true that many career offices throughout the country did not directly recruit a great many service men, but they provided a shop window for the armed forces. Shutting them gave the impression, indirectly if not directly, that the armed services, and especially the Army, did not want the number of recruits that they now need. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said about what is being done to make a correction.
I suggest that one of the reasons for the underspend this year in the defence budget was that the Army did not recruit the number of men and women that it wanted. I would have liked to see a percentage of that underspend used to enhance the recruitment budget so that we could return to the level that was originally anticipated. I understand that that might have caused one or two problems during the discussions that the Minister of Defence had with the Treasury this year. It seems that the savings that have been made balance out exactly the money that was not spent this year on the original estimates.
I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned the junior leaders. I, too, believe that we made a mistake some years ago in disbanding the battalion. I am pleased that we are now taking steps to recruit youngsters at an earlier age. There is no doubt in my mind that education standards have improved; the two years between 16 and 18 are extremely important in a young man's life, and he could well go down the wrong road. Even at the age of 18, he might not be suitable for recruitment into the Army, because of what had happened in the interim.
I am encouraged by what has been said about the cadet movement. I would like to see a firmer commitment to increasing the size of the movement. It has an important role to play in recruitment. I acknowledge, however, that relatively few cadets join the regular armed forces. At the same time, they provide an important link between the armed services and the civilian community. That link will become even more important in future.
Unlike virtually every other armed service throughout Europe, we do not have a citizens' army. We do not have people who, after leaving school, go into an armed service. As we have a professional army—it is right that we should—all the time, the number of people who have had experience of military life is reducing. If we are generally to understand the need for armed services—they carry out an excellent role—we must develop links between civilian and military life styles. The cadet movement is one way of achieving exactly that. As has been said, many adult volunteers give up their spare time to encourage useful activities that help self-reliance and confidence.

953
The cadet movement is extremely important for another reason. I believe that it fulfils a useful social purpose. It provides a gainful occupation for teenagers. If they were not in the movement, they might well be doing other things not nearly as constructive.
I was struck by a statistic showing that it costs less than £500 to keep someone in one of the cadet movements for one year. It costs over £2,000 a week to send a young offender who has stolen a few motor cars to an outward bound centre in north Wales, let alone to a holiday in Egypt, where the young person would carry out precisely the same sort of activities that he would experience in the three cadet movements. I sincerely hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will continue to press the Home Office to recognise the excellent work that is undertaken by the cadet movements and that, as a result, the movements will receive some financial benefit to increase their size, so that they might carry out their important social role.
Opposition Members would be disappointed if I did not mention the Labour party's contribution to the debate. If the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) does not mind, I shall not mention his speech especially. It was a good knockabout speech. I think that he was fishing a bit too far when he talked about a regulation associated with the jobseeker's legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who has left the Chamber, dealt with that extremely well. If people do not volunteer for something and if others do not want anyone, it cannot be said that anyone has refused a job.
Dr. Reid: First, I have no objection to the use of jobcentres. Secondly, I would encourage people to join the Army. Thirdly, there is volunteering. If someone is not very keen on a job and there is the implicit threat of removal of benefit, suddenly that person becomes extremely keen on that job. I said that there is no exemption under the jobseekers regulations, which are before Parliament, for armed forces' jobs through the jobcentres. Under the regulations, every other job, if not accepted, will lead to the withdrawal of benefit.
To retain the voluntary and professional nature of the services, which the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and I want, as do the armed forces, will the Government please bring forward an explicit amendment to the regulations? Let us ensure that no young person is under any threat of compulsion or coercion, at the discretion of any local persons. I hope that my intervention clarifies the matter. The issue is not whether the Army or anyone else wants someone, but whether someone feels that he should apply for a job because there will be a financial penalty if he does not.
Mr. Mans: I should not have given way, as we have just heard another speech. I am sure that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and if there is any need to examine the regulations, I am certain that that will be done, because I am quite convinced that what the hon. Gentleman has said is just not true in practice.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I can assure my hon. Friend quite expressly that any rejection of a service career by someone who does not want a service career will not involve his losing benefit as a result.
Mr. Mans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point—most Conservative Members had understood it—in a way that the hon. Member for South Shields can also understand.
What is more relevant is that, following the demise of the cold war and the Soviet Union. there have been tremendous changes in the size of the armed forces. If there had been—God forbid—a Labour Government since, very few people would think that the armed services would he in the good position that they are in now. Despite a number of Opposition Members who are very honourable and understand the need for the armed forces, the fact remains that the Labour party has always had different priorities.
Put simply: the Labour party's philosophy puts social security in front of national security. We had a fair number of examples of that—I personally experienced those examples—when we last had a Labour Government, in the mid-1970s. Sometimes, I have to say, some of my colleagues have not been quite as forthright as they should in making that clear. To me, national security must always come before social security, and we must ensure that the available resources are used first for the defence of the country.
Something else separates our view on defence from that of the Labour party—the hon. Gentleman alluded to this, although I do not know whether he quite realised that he had done so. Essentially, the armed services are for fighting wars. We must ensure that we are properly defended so that we can fight a high-tech war, of the sort that we saw in the Gulf, for example. We must not allow the primary role of our armed services to be peacekeeping.
Indeed, I would go further and suggest one additional reason why we have problems with recruitment. We were a member of the UN forces in Bosnia during the war there. That was not an incentive to recruitment. I strongly suspect that the experiences of many soldiers out there was not of the sort that would encourage others to join. I also strongly suspect that, following the NATO involvement, we shall now see an upturn in recruitment as a result of the activities that it is able to perform there.
An important part of ground operations—hon. Members would probably expect me to mention this—is the contribution of air power. We have just seen on television a very interesting programme on the Gulf war. I do not wish to comment on what a particular general said about the RAF operations. The statement has already been shown to be inaccurate. I sincerely hope that he corrects his statements, as I am certain that he will in the weeks ahead. I want to dwell on what we saw.
The British Army has been fortunate over the past 40 or 50 years. It has always been able to fight a land battle in the knowledge that it had air superiority. The only time when we came close to losing that was during the Falklands—one of the most tragic incidents was the loss of the Sir Galahad—and we lost a huge number of soldiers as a result.
It is difficult deciding whether to buy more aircraft or more tanks or other ground vehicles. It must be doubly difficult for a general to suggest that perhaps we need a few more aircraft. I must tell the House, as a former airman, that I am quite certain that the day when we do not have sufficient air superiority for our Army to operate will be the day when the British Army recognises that it has made a mistake. There must be a balance: otherwise

955
the scenes—as we saw on television over the past week, which showed what the Iraqi Army suffered—would be devastating.
I am quite convinced that the changes that have taken place have been handled well. I am also convinced that we can do much to enhance our recruitment. There is no doubt in many people's minds that, although the armed services are most certainly safe in the hands of the Conservative Government, they most certainly would not be as safe in the hands of the Opposition parties.
8.16 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) has brought considerable expertise to the deliberations of the Defence Committee. He is usually rather helpful. He made a brave attempt at being partisan, which is out of character, but I shall not hold that against him, as I realise that an election is coming up.
Perhaps I should put in an early bid to take part in the same debate next year, because I hope to learn a lot more about the work of the armed forces, and the Army in particular, during the coming year, not only as a member of the Defence Committee but having signed up—I believe volunteered is the term—for the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Not only will I see many soldiers but I will see quite a lot of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). I suspect that we shall hear again and again, as I have in recent years in meetings with members of the armed forces, that they are undermanned, under-recruited and overstretched. The Defence Committee has been going on about that for years.
We heard from the Minister about the emergency tour interval. Twenty-four months is supposed to be the minimum, yet he boasted that it is now the average. That is a step in the right direction, but the Department has been striving to meet that objective for many years and has not done so yet. That is taking its toll on service men and their families. The Department must do better.
I understand why people such as the hon. Member for Wyre and others like to accuse Opposition Members of causing uncertainty in the armed forces by our undertaking to have a comprehensive defence review when we come to power. It is, perhaps, more satisfactory for the armed forces to have one major defence review and to set the strategic objectives in the long-term rather than the on-going grind that they have suffered from the Conservative Government—"Options for Change", defence cost studies, "Front Line First" and so on, and a 30 per cent. cut. It is no wonder that morale is not what it should be. Even this Government, in their dying months, must try to do better.
Specifically, I endorse the point that was made by the Chairman of the Defence Committee earlier about Gulf war syndrome. The Committee was unanimous on that point. There is an overwhelming case for the MOD to undertake an epidemiological study to ascertain whether there is such a condition and, if so, what it may or may not he. For Ministers to adopt the position that it does not exist or that sufferers from it are malingering will not do. There is no question but that the people seen by the Select Committee are ill and they are entitled to proper understanding and proper action.
956
The Minister of State opened with an important statement about the deployment in Bosnia. Hon. Members may be aware that I have spent a certain amount of time in Bosnia, both with the Committee and—perhaps rather recklessly—at the wheels of lorries in convoys run by Edinburgh Direct Aid last summer and the previous one. I have driven on most of the roads made by British Army engineers in central Bosnia.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the engineers for their remarkable achievement in creating those links, which would not otherwise be there, and which have made it possible for UNHCR and other organisations to take assistance desperately needed by refugees and others in isolated communities such as Tuzla, Sarajevo and other areas of central Bosnia. It was a harrowing experience for me to see the plight of refugees from places such as Srebrenica and Zepa last summer. It has at least been possible to keep those people alive, and that is the achievement of UNPROFOR.
I join the Minister and others in paying tribute to all the British service men and those from other national contingents in UNPROFOR who have worked hard, often in great danger, during the past three to four years to make it possible to sustain that operation. I certainly join him in wishing the new IFOR contingent well. I look forward to seeing it in the course of the coming year.
I recall taking part in an Army debate three years ago when the deployment in Bosnia was fresh and new and we were all rather confused and perhaps optimistic. At that stage, we were talking about the Vance-Owen plan—the first of many. I remember saying that a massive force would have to be put into Bosnia in order to enforce an agreement, and that such a massive deployment would inevitably require United States participation. We have got there at last. Meanwhile, about 200,000 people have lost their lives in that vicious civil war.
The trouble was that, for all the good will, UNPROFOR had neither the mandate nor the firepower to make that peace stick. All concerned can draw important lessons from that experience. The fundamental difficulty was that Bosnia is a European problem. We had to wait that amount of time for an American-led solution to a fundamentally European problem. It required United States diplomacy, forces and lift to achieve what is being achieved there now.
I do not blame the Americans for being reluctant to become embroiled in such a conflict. It is in a faraway place of which we know comparatively little, and for the Americans it is an even further-away place, of which they know even less. Why should they get involved in such European conflicts?
In view of the instability and the difficulties in eastern and central Europe, and perhaps also on the southern flank of NATO, there is a powerful case for the development of a stronger European defence entity. We cannot always rely on Uncle Sam to send GIs to deal with problems in Europe. It is time that the European nations got together to lead a stronger and more coherent European defence entity, and the obvious leaders for such a scenario must he Britain and France. That should he the objective.
It has been said again and again in the debate, and rightly so, that the British Army is one of the best, if not the best, in the world—that has been manifested time again, for example, in Northern Ireland and Bosnia—but does it have the tools required to do that job? The

957
equipment that has just been taken out to Bosnia for our contingent in IFOR had to be carried in foreign ships in many cases. That is one point that should be addressed more vigorously.
Even more important is the question of our ability to mount amphibious operations at all. An article in the 27 November edition of Defence News, referring to a report submitted to the Secretary of State by the directorate of operational capability in October, said:
"Britain's armed forces no longer have the shipping capability to carry out an amphibious assault on the same scale as the Falklands operation, according to a highly classified Ministry of Defence report."
Being an inquisitive soul, I tabled a question to see whether I could discover a little more about that report. Predictably, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replied:
"Reports produced by my directorate of operational capability are classified documents, and constitute advice to Ministers. It is not our practice to place such documents in the Library of the House."
Surprise, surprise. He went on:
"The Royal Navy retains the capability to conduct amphibious operations in support of our defence policy objectives. This capability is currently being enhanced by the acquisition of the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean, which was launched earlier this year, and the refit of the landing ship logistic Sir Bedivere."
The final sentence is the intriguing one. It says:
"Negotiations are under way with VSEL on its tender to replace the amphibious ships HMS Fearless and Intrepid."—[Official Report, 4 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 3.]
Veterans of the Defence Committee will know the protracted story of the replacements for Fearless and Intrepid, the amphibious assault ships. As long ago as 1975, Ministers were worrying about their replacement. The Government's whole life has been spent talking about the replacement of those ships—the one commissioned in 1965, the other in 1967, both steam powered. I will not bore the House with the catalogue of false starts, talks about a ship life extension programme, and so on, but here we are, 20 years on, with still no answer.
We now have the NAPNOC initiative whereby VSEL has been invited to bid to replace the ships on the principle of no acceptable price, no contract. The trouble is that what flows from that is no contract, no capability for an amphibious operation such as was undertaken in the Falklands. I shall be interested to know whether the Government intend to take that decision. It is obviously long overdue.
It is all very well to praise our armed forces—we can all do that—but our armed forces need the tools to do the job and I fear that the evidence of recent years shows that the Government are not prepared to sustain the scale of either our armed forces as required or the equipment of our armed forces as required.
8.27 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: I shall try to be as brief as I can, but I have to open by saying that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) did himself less than justice in his opening speech and when he reads it tomorrow I think that he will agree with me.
I am not in the habit of quoting or hiding behind newspaper articles and retired generals, but the hon. Gentleman's speech turned my mind to an article in the Daily Express today entitled "Could we win a war today?" from which I shall quote one short extract. It says:
"In our current Defence Secretary. so hated by liberals"—
958
I imagine that that means new Labour—
"of all persuasions. we have a man of firmness and of vision Michael Portillo who aspires, and rightly so, to lead his Party and his country. He has many of the qualities necessary. We expect him to make economies where they can be safely made. But we also expect him to stand firm against the mania for cuts designed to deliver lower taxes.
Portillo is, among other talents, an historian. As such he knows that advocates of defence spending always over-state their case. As the great Lord Salisbury once put it: 'If you listen to the Generals, nothing is safe.'"
I leave it there.
Almost all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate have said, rightly, that we are proud of our armed forces and of our Army. Over the years, its professionalism, discipline and confidence has been displayed many times, as they are again today.
I had to live through the days of national service. As a regular soldier, I could not have been more delighted when conscription came to an end. It was sapping our professionalism in the armed forces and we were spending far too much time on training young conscripts, good though they were. Now we have a solidly professional Army, smaller in size compared with other conscript armies, but more than making up for that by its training and ability.
The world has changed and anyone who says that we cannot reduce the defence spending level of five years ago is living in cloud cuckoo land. The limit of the cuts, however, has now been reached and we cannot afford to reduce the strength, especially of our infantry battalions, any further. It is no use having establishments of infantry battalions when those battalions are not being kept up to strength.
This is not a criticism—my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made clear the concern that we all feel about the recruiting figures—but it is a fact that we are some 2,000 men short in the infantry today. That does not sound a large number, but it is 10 per cent. of our infantry strength. That should cause concern.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, however, we must understand that the infantry, by its very nature, demands and needs an inflow of competent, capable young people, and that people will be leaving the infantry at a much earlier age than they will other arms of the services. We must therefore have highly motivated young men and women who are determined to make the Army their career, but who are prepared, when they reach the age of about 40, to go into a second career—we must always bear that in mind.
Are we recruiting sufficient young men of quality? It is self-evident that we are not. How could we improve recruiting? We could have better publicity. There is a marvellous story to tell about today's Army and the way of life that young people can expect when they go into it. The role of a soldier in an infantry battalion today is startlingly different from, but much more rewarding than, that role in such a battalion six years ago.
What was that role six years ago? One travelled to Germany with the battalion and went through a succession of annual training cycles. One would wake up on 1 January of one year and know that one would be going through exactly the same cycle as the year before. On top of that, increasingly, all infantry soldiers had to face up to the fact of more and more tours in Northern Ireland.

959
To be honest, having led a platoon in difficult country on active service, the one thing that I would not have liked to do was patrol the streets of Belfast at certain times during the troubles. I pay tribute to all our soldiers who had to face that duty.
We must consider providing better recruiting facilities. It may not be ideal to use jobcentres, but they are there and there are many more of them than there could be of Army or service recruiting centres. I suggest to the Minister who will reply that we use those jobcentres, recruit people who are leaving the armed services at about the age of 40, and put them in the jobcentres. They would be capable of doing the job in the Employment Service, but they would also be available to give specialist advice as and when required to people who might want to join the Army. A manager could then say, "There is George. He has been in the Army. He will tell you all about it."
It has been said that a problem exists in relation to 16 to 18-year-olds. If I were 16 years old, leaving school and wanting to join the Army, I would know that a gap in time existed before I could do so. If I were worth anything, I would get a job. By the time that I approached 18, therefore, I would not want to join the Army, because I would he too settled. Why on earth does that happen? I gather that the Highland Division is carrying out an experiment with a junior company. Let us get back to that, because it gives young people an incentive, good training and, above all, a good education.
If the money is not available in the defence budget, surely it would be right and proper for the Ministry of Defence to turn to the Department for Education and Employment and say, "Half the content of this one-year training programme involves education. Therefore, you can pay for it." I suggest to the Minister that it is worth a try.
Why on earth do we have a recruitment age of about 18? I joined the Army when I was 16. Some people are perfectly mature at that age, others are not, but there is no reason why we should not reduce the recruitment age to 17 for certain people. We, and they, should have a right to choose. We could take such young people in, or reject them.
Why do we not allow Territorial Army battalions to take youngsters in at the age of 16? We all know what a good job the cadets do, but, by the time they reach 16, many young cadets are fed up with seeing 11 and 12-year-olds coming along behind them. They are ready and possibly willing to go into the TA. It would not be a large number and we might not get many recruits, but at least it would not cost a great deal of money. It might be worth experimenting with that idea.
On recruiting teams in schools, there was once a major problem with that in some areas. I hope to goodness that that time has come and gone and that new Labour will make it clear to all schools under their control that they should allow Army recruiting teams in to tell young people about the value of Army life. I see the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) nodding his head. I am sure that he will do all he can to bring that about.
Those were just a few thoughts from a regular ex-soldier, long retired from the Army. I am concerned about the 10 per cent. shortfall, and all the predictions are that that figure could rise to 20 per cent.—some 4,000
960
infantry. Something must be done to avoid this. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for his awareness and his determination to do something about it.
We have all talked about the Territorial Army and know its value. Is it not strange that the most senior officer in the TA, which gives splendid support to our regular forces, is a brigadier? No other reserve force, including the National Guard and the Australian Reserve Forces, does not have a civilian general in charge, obviously with the back-up of a regular alongside. Is it not time that we gave that ultimate accolade to the TA and say, "You do a good job; you must have someone in the TA who could and should be a major-general"? That would be recognition of its work. I commend that proposal to the Minister when he replies.
8.37 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Some of the wisest words that we have heard tonight have come from our wise old warriors, my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) and for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant). We should consider the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire—who has no doubt had the good sense to retire to the mess at this stage of evening—on the question of morale and the danger of listening to the views of retired Army officers, especially senior ones, after they have left the service.
In the old days, bucolic colonels used to shower The Times with letters from the shires. No one, except perhaps retired admirals, took much notice of them. Nowadays, unfortunately, their views arc picked up by the tabloid press and are used by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) to attack the Army.
Of course, in an organisation as big as the Army, one will find people who are discontented—that is inevitable. After the end of the cold war, it was clearly necessary to go through "Options for Change" and "Front Line First", which meant a dramatic change in the way in which the Army operated, and the civilianisation of many support services. Undoubtedly, it changed the life of some serving senior officers—the life in the mess changed with the advent of civilianisation. Clearly, those people were not happy. That was inevitable. I do not think that the same applies among younger men and women in the services today.
Visiting local Army bases, I was impressed by the enthusiasm of young people who were keen to go out to Bosnia and undertake other tasks that the Army undertakes nowadays. All our lives are busier than they used to be, but young people are taking up their tasks in the Army with relish. I do not agree with what Opposition Members have said about morale; I place far more credence in the letter read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), which demonstrated the level of morale in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—which recruits many people from the north and from my constituency.
I think that we all agree that the Army needs training. Given that we no longer have access to training in Germany, we must develop the facility at home. It is a pity that the MOD has experienced so much difficulty in securing an expansion of the training area in Otterburn, part of which is in my constituency. Training is needed in the use of new weapons such as the AS90, the Warrior and the multiple launch rocket systems.

961
Unfortunately, although local people in the Otterburn training area support that multi-million pound development, some are fighting a rearguard action to prevent it. I am sorry that the chairman of the Council for National Parks, Sir Chris Bonington, turned up at a demonstration in Otterburn to protest about the Army's plans, demanding that no provision should be made for the AS90 and the modern weapons now being deployed in Bosnia, and asking for a public inquiry into the scheme to extend training on the Otterburn ranges.
Luckily, some of the local people found out about the demonstration, and when Sir Chris turned up with his supporters in their anoraks and walking boots, they were met by another group. The locals waved their own banners, reading "Bonington go home". They knew that the country needs the Army, which plays an important part in the life of the remote Northumbrian community. I am glad to say that the demonstration ended without having the public impact that Sir Chris Bonington had expected.
A public inquiry would delay the Army's implementation of the plan for at least two years, probably three. The Army cannot wait that long. Men and equipment are returning from Germany, and training is necessary in this country. I am pleased to learn that—as a result of pressure from local people, I believe—the Northumbrian national park authority, which controls planning in the military training area, hopes to reach a compromise with the Army. With luck, the outcome will be in March.
I must say something about the role of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the shadow Secretary of State. Sadly, he was unable to attend today's debate. On 9 September, his local newspaper, the Newcastle Journal, reported that he had led a diatribe against some of my constituents at another demonstration in Otterburn, where he was joined by a group of ramblers. The shadow Secretary of State—in his anorak—accused my constituents of being
"narrow-minded, selfish and fuelled by anti-Tyneside sentiment."
More significantly, the hon. Gentleman said that there should be a public inquiry into the MOD's plans for Otterburn. He must have known that, if his call for an inquiry had come to fruition, it would have delayed the vital expansion of the Otterburn training range for two or three years. What kind of action is that from someone who speaks of the need for our troops to be properly trained?
A few days later, in the House, the hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State to give an assurance that the troops in Bosnia would be properly equipped with, among other weapons, the AS90 gun, which he has tried to stop the Royal Artillery from using on the Otterburn training ranges.
Local people support the Army 100 per cent., but one detail needs to be resolved: the method of transporting heavy weapons such as the AS90 and the Warriors to and from the Otterburn training ranges. We must ensure that the good will of those local people is not dissipated by the lengthy disruption of their lives by those convoys: there must be proper negotiation between the MOD, the police and the Highways Agency to minimise that disruption. I am sure that careful planning and widespread consultation would make that possible.
The people of Northumberland gladly put up with low flying, and they put up with the Army in Otterburn. Indeed, they welcomed the Army, which has been there
962
since 1911. They have done that mainly in the national interest. If consideration of the national interest is to prove helpful to the people of Northumberland, a couple of bypasses should be provided in Ponteland and Belsay to enable military vehicles to move to and from the training area. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister's response will be encouraging.
8.45 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I had flu recently. I hope that my speech will he audible; I also intend it to be short.
Like other Conservative Members, I found the speech of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) regrettable and out of character. It was partisan, specious and fatuous, and said nothing about what Labour wanted to do. It hid behind a cloak of stating the obvious. All NATO countries have made cuts since the end of the cold war, which will inevitably cause disruption and uncertainty among those who serve until stability returns.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North did not say what he would have done. Would he have suggested a different balance of forces at the end? Would he have suggested the introduction of more infantry and less cavalry, more air power or more sea power? Nothing in his speech was relevant to serving military officers or, indeed, armchair generals and admirals.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans), who spoke of the difference between Labour's defence policy and that of the Conservatives. Inevitably, Labour puts much more effort into providing social security than providing national security, and a nation without the will to defend itself is not really a nation but a collection of communities. As I may have said in another speech, a nation loses the will to survive if it cares more about providing a safety net than providing a security net. I hope that all hon. Members will think about that as the maniacs in the Club Med or elsewhere point their missiles increasingly at Europe, supposedly in support of their religious zeal in the Islamic or any other extremist or nationalist cause.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces made an excellent speech that covered a wide range. I particularly appreciated his response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). My brother is about to leave his battalion in Northern Ireland—he is in the Grenadier Guards—and I know that, with a difficult job ahead of him, he will take great comfort from the fact that my hon. Friend intends to ensure that soldiers in Northern Ireland are given the necessary training facilities so that they are busily and usefully employed.
A number of remarks have been made about recruitment. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for the attention that he gave the subject in his speech, the careful consideration and answers that he has given it in Defence questions and the seriousness with which he views it. It is inevitable after a period of reductions in the armed forces and the—sometimes—enforced losing of men from various different branches of service that there will be a feeling abroad that the Army, the Navy and Air Force arc shrinking, will therefore not need young people to join, and that in any case such a career might not last that long.
The work, the speech and indeed the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister will put that right. It will give young people the impression that there is a wonderful career to

963
be had in the Army and the other services and that it is well worth joining up and making a major contribution to the country's interests.
No speech in this debate would be complete without recognising the extraordinary service of our Army, especially the infantry units which are now joined by the cavalry armoured units in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia. I would add only that I have great respect for them. My hon. Friend the Minister put exactly the right colour on the matter by saying that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Although I am sure that all of us would have wished for it sooner, there is at last an extremely bright light on the horizon. It makes us very proud to see British troops carrying that light of peace forward and enabling the process to continue.
The announcement about the order for Army Land Rovers made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is extremely welcome, especially in my constituency where many people work at the Land-Rover plant down the road in Solihull. Although I know that my view will not be shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), I do not think that it behoves Conservative Members to denigrate either of the contenders for the order.
The order was given to Land-Rover because its ambulance is cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, it has better medical facilities in it, it is easier to use for medical people and it has the significant advantage of having parts in common with the existing Land Rover fleet as well as the new Tul-Tum fleet which the Army has ordered. Such commonality is an important aspect to the order, although I do not in any way wish to denigrate the excellent contender that might have been produced by the Austrians. The order will be very good news for people in the west midlands. The order for the much larger Tul-Tum units will be equally welcome.
While I am on the subject of Army equipment, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement whether he will soon be able to announce the order of, for example, the Merlin Smart 81 mm mortar or—perhaps—the longer range anti-tank weaponry about which I know the Army is keen to hear. We all look forward to his speech with great interest. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to make a few remarks.
8.53 pm
Mr. Robert Key: Now that all the Opposition Back Benches have been deserted, we can have a serious debate about defence.
Mr. John Spellar: Silly man.
Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman says, "Silly man", but I think that it is serious that not one Back Bencher from any Opposition party is present. The Conservative Members who have been sitting here for five hours waiting to speak have serious contributions to make to the debate.
One of the advantages of speaking late in the debate is that everything that should be said probably has been said, and one can just say, "We all agree." I must however congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on his speech. It said everything that I
964
would wish to say. I also thank him for his personal contribution to the raising of morale throughout the forces. It has been a great pleasure to see him fulfilling his role. He has done it seriously, but with a great sense of fun, which has made a great deal of difference to the armed forces and their families.
If the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) wonders why we minded so much about what he said, I should tell him quite simply that the tone, as well as the content, of his speech offended Conservative Members. I think that he will regret it. He has lost friends and smashed bridges, which is serious given that we all try to establish a bipartisan approach to defence matters in the House. Perhaps the worst that I can wish on him is that tomorrow morning the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) sends round the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to give him a little spinning, because clearly the mask has slipped.
I have worked with more than 20 Defence Ministers in my time as a Member of Parliament. They come and they go—as do commanders in chief, generals, admirals, air marshals, and private officers in the Ministry of Defence. I say with complete confidence that we have the best team of Ministers with whom I have worked. I have heard it said in the field by troops, from generals, socially in my constituency and among the retired military of all ranks, whom I am fortunate to have living in my constituency and to whom I listen. I am never short of advice, and I appreciate it.
Morale became low in the forces quickly after the Gulf war, but there is no doubt that it is so much better now. The forces are professional, well equipped, well trained, well motivated, proud of the past, proud of their current role and held in the highest esteem worldwide. I am immensely proud of our service men of all three services. Let us not forget the service men and women in Northern Ireland and Germany, who, as well as those in Bosnia, are all doing their duty.
Defence research is often underestimated. It is quite clear that these days wars are won through intelligence and science and technology, as well as by training and people. This year £550 million has been spent on defence research and that is a substantial sum. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has a £1 billion turnover and 12,000 staff, and is the largest physics-based research grouping in western Europe. That is something of which we can be immensely proud.
In my constituency, the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation is at Boscombe Down and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is at Porton Down. Their contribution is of inestimable value. It was good news to hear that the Defence Research Agency, as it was called, saved £100 million over two years in its running costs—and quite right, too. I am a little concerned, however, that applied research must save some £20 million a year, and I certainly wish the Ministry of Defence well in seeking to save £30 million a year by increasing the amount of collaborative and non-departmental work. I hope very much that it can achieve that—but it would be quite an achievement.
I give my strong support for the Ministry of Defence wealth-creation initiative. The recent dual-use technology centres will bring a new and refreshing atmosphere to structural material centres, super-computing, thermal imaging, maritime technology, software engineering,

965
information technology and robotics. Behind all that are people and families, who are part of our all communities. Sometimes people think of the armed forces as just those soldiers they see on television every day or those involved in trooping the colour. In fact, they are an immensely important part of our entire civilian community as well.
Behind every uniformed member of the forces is at least one non-uniformed member of Ministry of Defence staff. In my constituency, I have about 5,000 uniformed personnel and about 5,000 civilian employees. They use our services, schools and health service, which is a very good thing. We also should not forget the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute in Amesbury and all that it is doing, or the warehouse in Grantham that will shortly be opened and which will boost the NAAFI's massive operation. It is a huge retail operation, of which any of the high street supermarkets would be proud. The NAAFI does much more. It operates in times of war as well as times of peace, and provides everything from television sets to tea.
The social side of the Army is important and must not be forgotten. My hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned the Federation of Army Wives, but I shall be keeping a close watch on the new Housing Executive as it starts to fulfil a difficult role.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said that we were now free of the burdens of empire. We are not quite free of those burdens. When I visited Hong Kong in September—the visit is declared in the Register of Members' Interests as having been financed by the Government of Hong Kong—I met members of the British military forces out there, such as the chief of staff, and I talked to a number of people. I was distressed to hear of the damage being done to Britain's reputation as we move towards the handover to China in relation to a small number of Hong Kong residents who have worked for many years at British military establishments there as a part of the locally engaged work force.
Those people are a unique, ring-fenced group of Hong Kong citizens who, as a condition of their employment by British military forces, had to sign a contract that specifically transferred their loyalty from the Government of Hong Kong to the British sovereign power. In real and practical terms, they were fully signed-up Brits. In the distribution of 50,000 British passports to Hong Kong citizens, they received no special treatment, yet they are very special and deserve to be recognised as such. They are people on whom the British forces of all services have relied for many years.
I wrote to the Home Secretary about those people on 25 September. The wheels of the Home Office grind slowly, and I have yet to receive a response. I hope that the response will he positive.
I congratulate the chief executive of the New Defence Estates Organisation on his third annual report. It is something that the Army has to live with—and in. It has 706 historic buildings, 606 of which are in England, which makes life pretty tricky if one is trying to train a modern army. The new approach is much appreciated, and I congratulate the Army.
Finally, may I raise a small but important point; perhaps it is this sort of thing that will help to encourage morale among service families. It is perhaps because of the 5,000 soldiers in my constituency, many of whom move in and out of this country with their families, that I
966
am receiving a growing trickle of letters about our pet quarantine regulations. Our tough rabies laws have protected this country successfully for a long time. However, the report of the Agriculture Select Committee has convinced me that we need a fresh approach.
I have always been a strong supporter of our vigilant stance against rabies—that is not in question. The evidence of the Select Committee, together with its unanimous recommendations, has forced me to change my mind. Since 1972, 160,000 pets have been through quarantine and death has occurred in 2,500 cases, without a single case of rabies. I believe that we now need a system that is based on vaccination, antibody testing and approved identification with electronic tagging for pet dogs and cats which arrive from rabies-free and approved countries. The heartache among service families should not be underestimated. It is a major factor in their morale and finances. The law-abiding and pet-loving people and their pets are, as ever, the ones who are penalised.
In 1992, the European Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee produced a report which said that it was
"of the opinion that cats and dogs vaccinated with inactivated vaccines which conformed to European pharmacopoeia standards, at at least three months of age, do not present a risk of spreading rabies provided that they are symptom-free at least four months after the initial vaccination."
It also told the commission that if 1,000 dogs were imported each year from France to the United Kingdom, even without passing through the quarantine system, one could expect that, on average, a dog incubating rabies might enter this country once every 1,250 years.
That issue must be looked at. I make that plea on behalf of my service constituents. It is a small point at the end of an important debate on the Army, but I hope that my hon Friends on the Front Bench will take it seriously.
9.3 pm
Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He was entirely right to draw attention to the fact that we have a superb team at the Ministry of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently paid a highly successful visit to the middle east, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is doing an extremely good job and batting for Britain to boot, and, if my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will permit me to say so, he is known throughout the armed forces as a class act in our so-called classless society.
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant), who described himself as one of the few old soldiers left in the House. I agree wholeheartedly with a number of his remarks. In particular, we share his delight in the decision to award the contract to Land-Rover.
I listened with interest, but some disappointment, to the remarks of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Hon. Members who have listened to the hon. Gentleman in previous debates will know that he was not on good form tonight. He cannot believe for a moment that there would be any compulsion on jobcentres to send people into the services, particularly the Army. That is utter nonsense and was dealt with first by my hon. Friend

967
the Minister for the Armed Forces when the hon. Gentleman was not listening, and by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement.
Several of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned the Army Cadet Force, which I agree is not simply about Army recruiting. It is also a means by which young people can be acquainted with the armed forces, particularly the Army. I believe that, over a number of years, the cadet force makes them better citizens and we should continue to support it. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) that we should spend more on it—we are getting good value for money.
I should like to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire. It is important that many hon. Members take part in the parliamentary armed forces scheme. I keep getting letters from Colonel Thorne, who is a former hon. Member, and I keep telling him that I was in the Army, but he still writes to me. I am probably being told that I should spend some time with the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. It is clear that hon. Members have benefited a great deal from that scheme.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre that we made a mistake in doing away with the Junior Leaders Infantry Battalion.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Motherwell, North had to say about Army recruiting. I was not so concerned about jobcentres becoming involved in recruitment. It is entirely right that the Ministry of Defence should examine the way in which service recruiting centres have operated, and may operate in future, and consider what changes might be made.
If I might make one constructive criticism, it is that regimental headquarters should have a little more support in keeping the Army in the public eye. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench know full well that I disagree totally with the merger of the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders. Perhaps they will take on board some constructive criticism now that it is water under the bridge. If we change the method of recruiting, we must ensure that the regimental teams have sufficient petrol and vehicles that work to get them round the countryside. When my hon. Friends consider the vast areas of Scotland that have to be covered, they will understand that I am making a constructive point.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and I share his concerns. He will acknowledge that performance of different regiments is extremely varied. Some regiments do well; others do not. The Chief of the General Staff and the Army Board are considering what guidance they can give individual regiments to establish a more standardised process, not in terms of tying them up, but to help them get the very best out of the resources that are available for recruitment. My hon. Friend is on to an extremely good point.
Mr. Banks: I want to follow the example of other hon. Members. to whom I am grateful. and be brief in order to allow those who want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have the opportunity to contribute, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
968
It is 12 months since we last debated this subject. While there is no direct threat on our doorstep, there is still considerable risk in the world. The nature and direction of that risk is fluid and unpredictable. At the beginning of the decade, it lay in Baghdad, but we can now identify risks in the Balkans. I am conscious, however, that we may be receiving intelligence reports that suggest that there is a further build-up of forces within Iraqi borders, about which we should all be concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and others who drew attention to that were entirely right to say that we have to be careful about cost savings. The defences of the United Kingdom and of our allies are vital.
Much discussion has focused on the institutional and bureaucratic mechanisms by which the European Union might implement policy decisions involving some sort of military action by member states. Our contribution to European security has been, and will remain, unique and substantial. As long as nations have experience of working together in some context, such as NATO or the conventional forces in Europe talks, they can work together in another organisational context.
Any attempts at reorganising European defence purely for political reasons, therefore—especially any fanciful notion of equalising the importance of NATO and the Western European Union—must be subordinated to the continuing examination of future challenges and to the proper equipment of our forces with the necessary hardware at the best possible prices. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember those comments, come the intergovernmental conference later this year.
There will soon be more than 13,000 British troops stationed in Bosnia—the largest contribution to the peace effort after the United States. They form part of NATO's first land operation in almost 50 years of existence and are led by a British General, Sir Michael Walker. Their objectives seem to be clearer than was formerly the case in Bosnia. They are there primarily to help and persuade, by their very presence as well as their actions, the warring factions to stick to the Dayton agreement.
I hope that no military action will be necessary, but our troops should be given every chance to defend themselves, within the NATO rules of engagement, from any attack. They are not going to Bosnia to fight a heroic battle or to fight other people's battles. They will leave their mark on military history. After all, as Milton wrote:
"Peace hath her victories
No less renowned than war."
I do not believe that we have heard anything about Labour's plans for the future. All we have heard about is the defence review. For a number of years, we have heard Labour party conference motions for£4 billion-worth of cuts—equivalent to some 40 infantry battalions.
Dr. Reid: Forty battalions?
Mr. Banks: Well, £4 billion is a lot of money and troops are expensive. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman started to pick up on one or two simple points of arithmetic.
What is the point of having a review? To hide the fact that the Labour party has no policy and that it is interested only in making further and deeper cuts. I wish I had time to pursue that point, but I must end by saying that, listening to Opposition Members tonight, particularly the

969
hon. Member for Motherwell, North, I have no doubt that the defence of this country is still not safe—nor would it be safe—in Labour hands.
9.13 pm
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: First, I must apologise for the fact that other commitments have made my attendance at this debate intermittent. May I also say how much I enjoyed the exposition of defence policy by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—both the content and, to echo the words of my colleagues, the style to which we have become accustomed. It was in marked contrast to the essentially parochial concerns expressed from the Opposition Benches.
There has been so much good news on the wide deployment and effectiveness of our forces, on the respect in which they are held and on their operational ability and flexibility, that I hope that it will not be considered churlish to highlight one or two concerns, which are held by several Conservative Members, that have already been expressed. I hope that, against a background of the inadequacy or absence of any Opposition policy, such observations are constructive.
The equipment situation is admirable. A progressively higher proportion of the defence budget is being spent on the highly sophisticated weaponry about which we have heard so much today. Our men have been given the kit that they want, to an extent that is the envy of the world. Indeed, we now have the world's best professional soldiers with the best professional kit. I doubt whether any socialist-run economy—overlaid with its particular political priorities—could possibly have achieved that.
I am sure that my hon. Friends agree, however, that the manpower situation is far from satisfactory. We have gone through all of the arguments about the right size for the Army, and the original "Options for Change" figures were—thank goodness—revised upwards, so that battalions earmarked for amalgamation were saved. The fact remains, as my hon. Friend the Minister said today, that there is a shortfall of around 2,000 men now, which is expected to increase to around 4,000 in 1997. That is a slow but alarming haemorrhage.
The Government may have been victims of their own success in reducing unemployment generally, thus decreasing the pool available for recruitment to the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Minister will be making sterling efforts to discredit the ridiculous myth that redundancies at the latter end of a military career mean that there is less need for young recruits to the Army at the outset. My hon. Friend will be educating the public about that obvious fallacy in the advertising campaign that he has announced today.
I understand that the trend towards closing recruiting offices is being reversed, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that there is no substitute for a recruiting sergeant, who is suitably sponsored and self-motivated, to gain recruits for his regiment. Indeed, the regimental system depends on geographical links and personal contact. I also believe that there are moves to reinstate the concept of junior leaders, but I am not certain that that subject has been addressed in today's debate. After all, it is probable that very few regimental sergeant majors did not start their career in that way. I would welcome my hon. Friend's advice as to the form and timing of any proposals—which I believe would he enlightened ones—to bring back junior leaders in one form or another.
970
One factor that detracts from the quality of life of service men is the emergency tour interval. I do not apologise for bringing up the issue again. Ever since "Options for Change", the confident aspiration has been for the interval between tours to he 24 months. In 1992, it was described as the minimum, but later it was described as a target for 1995–96. Today, my hon. Friend admitted that, owing to extra commitments, 20 months is more likely to be the figure that we can achieve for infantry battalions.
The House will recognise that someone who is motivated to be a soldier expects to put his skills to good use and does not want to he kicking his heels in a barracks. For single young men, the attractions of service life in a variety of theatres and roles is obvious. The problem is that wives, young families and regular girl friends understandably find such separations intolerable. I doubt, and have always doubted, that the 24-month tour interval is ever achievable. It certainly will not he if the manning problem continues, and I wish my hon. Friend every success in the measures that he has announced today to counteract that problem.
In some specialist units, such as the sappers, the emergency tour interval is as low as 12 months and, in some individual cases, soldiers with a particular expertise have been working on a back-to-back basis. The problem is magnified when we have such an enormous percentage of forces who are either training, on operations or retraining. The House will know that the percentage involved in such activities is the highest since the end of the second world war.
May I broaden the debate to a slightly more international basis? While history will mark down NATO as the most successful military organisation ever, the fact that it has achieved its ends owes precisely nothing to having been undermined for years by Opposition Members who were members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, even if they now choose to forget or hide the fact.
Shortly before the end of the cold war, I visited the newly formed Franco-German brigade at Böblingen. I assumed that it was only a political gesture but, in eulogies to the late President Mitterrand that we have all read recently, it was perceived as one of his and Chancellor Kohl's greatest achievements. I find it difficult to disagree, for it has developed into the 50,000-strong Eurocorps, no less, based in Strasbourg. That was no political gesture, but an affirmation of a Franco-German axis.
The traditional balance of power might be better served by developing the entente cordiale. We now have a bewildering proliferation of military organisations, for which one almost needs a glossary. Eurocorps has been joined by EUROFOR, now EUROMARFOR, and the rapid reaction corps, and now the Western European Union aspires to become the defence arm of the European Union.
As we approach the intergovernmental conference, I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will resist precipitate pressure for a common security and defence policy. According to Commissioner van den Broek, whom I challenged on the subject the other day, such a policy is compatible, first, with the neutrality of countries such as Ireland, Finland, Austria and Sweden, and, secondly, with enlargement of the

971
European Union to up to 30 members with qualified majority voting. The only slight morsel that he tossed me was to say, in a patronising way, that countries with a colonial past would have certain exemptions.
That is political, let alone military, nonsense. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will get the priorities right. He will get our armed forces trained, equipped and motivated as this nation wants them. Only then will we be in a position to co-operate with other countries, in that national interest, as circumstances arise in this uncertain world.
9.22 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: Every time that I prepare a speech for a defence or foreign affairs debate, I prepare one of Palmerstonian proportions, because I know that the House looks forward to everything that I have to say. Tonight, as always, I shall compress my remarks into the few moments left to me so that others may have an opportunity to speak.
Normally, I am entertained by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who gives a good wind-up speech. Sadly, this evening, he made his after-dinner speech before tea and it lost much in the telling.
In the few moments available, I wish to make some positive points. First, I want to praise the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Much as I should like to, I shall not give the House a Cook's tour of my travels over the past 18 months, although I would have done so had the Palmerstonian rule applied. Instead, I shall briefly mention some of the units that I have visited, and sing their praises.
I visited 24 Air Mobile Brigade in Colchester, which contained elements of the first battalion of the Royal Anglians, my constituency regiment. It is an excellent line regiment, which has done valiant service in both Bosnia and other theatres. I also visited 5 Airborne Brigade on a logistics parachute exercise on Salisbury plain. My visit was interrupted because the brigade had suddenly to be transported to Rwanda, but that demonstrates the versatility of our modern armed forces in war and in peace.
I was lucky enough to go to Northern Ireland, where I visited the headquarters staff. I also visited the first battalion of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment in Omagh. Again, that was an excellent experience for an overweight barrister such as myself. I went to the Falklands where I met members of all three services, who were doing excellent work in the south Atlantic—a long way from home—without complaint.
I have been to the military corrective training centre at Colchester most recently. It is an excellent place which will shortly be able to receive civilian young offenders, where they will learn much and benefit from the advice and training provided by the military staff. Perhaps most esoterically, I deliberately went to the Defence Animal Centre in Melton Mowbray, which is a few miles from my house. There, I practised my mounted sword drill. I challenge my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to bring his charger to New Palace Yard and we will compare our abilities with swords on horseback.
Sir Jim Spicer: That will sort him out.
Mr. Garnier: It might well sort him out.
972
At the Defence Animal Centre, or the Remount Depot as it used to be fondly called, I discovered the Prime Minister's Azeri stallion. That may he of interest to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Soames: Yes, I have seen it.
Mr. Garnier: I thought my hon. Friend had. It is an excellent animal and, in the event that it is available for sale, it would suit my daughter very well.
From the parliamentary armed forces scheme, I have learned about the tremendous range of abilities, from good to excellent, that we find in all ranks of the armed forces, from the youngest private soldier to the most senior starred rank. All ranks are imbued with excellent common sense, an attribute that we cannot always claim in the House.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned the vexed question of homosexuality in the armed forces. My impression, from the many soldiers to whom I have spoken, is that their common sense tells them that it would not be a good idea to alter the arrangements for homosexuals in the armed forces, especially in the Army. I ask the Government to listen to the soldier, because he is the man who has to live with their decision.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces mentioned national vocational qualifications. They are an excellent idea. There are far too many good soldiers leaving the Army after five or 10 years, 20 years for NCOs, who have nothing to show for their time but their years of experience. Of course, many of them will have medals for gallantry and all of them will have good conduct reports, but to impress the potential civilian employer, they need some form of educational certificate to demonstrate that they are not only good soldiers but good future employees.
Much has been said about Army recruiting centres. The security risk in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is now much diminished. From my experience in over 43 years of life, I know that the careers offices were good shop windows for the armed forces. I hope that the tri-service careers offices will be able to make their mark so that civilians and the Army can meet and so that the Army can become an ordinary item in the high street. The mystique of the Army must be removed, so that citizens can see it at work in the high street.
I trust that my thoughts have not been too garbled. On the subject of procurement, many hon. Members have mentioned the military ambulance order and Land-Rover. I wish to make a constituency point on behalf of King Trailers, which manufactures trailers. The company is capable of manufacturing military tank transporters and other towed vehicles for military use and, indeed, for civilian use. I urge the Government to keep an eye on that excellent company, which produces goods for the domestic and export markets and is a major employer in my constituency.
We have had a long and interesting debate and I have played only a small part. I trust that the Government will keep in mind the importance of the armed forces and understand that we Conservatives know that the Opposition are unfit to govern and to have any say in the way that our armed forces are run.
9.29 pm
Mr. John Spellar: This has been a wide-ranging debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) opened by dealing with the broad issues facing the Army. I shall concentrate more on procurement issues. First, however, I should like to deal with some of the points raised in the debate; I apologise in advance to hon. Members whose points I do not mention.
The Minister entertained us with the exploits of Corporal Coull. I was uncertain as to whether he would offer that as an example of how to settle disputes in political parties—perhaps he would pass it on to his colleagues. There was also some debate about the jobseeker's allowance, and a welcome intervention from the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). It would he useful if he passed on his comments to the Department for Education and Employment, so that they could be sent out as advice and so that any dubiety or lack of clarity could be removed.
At one stage, discussing the ambulances order, the Minister came under friendly fire from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who seemed wholly disoriented by the defection from sycophancy of her previous employer, Express Newspapers—but she will, I am sure, get over it.
The right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) repeated the party line about abuse from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North. It did not seem justified by my hon. Friend's speech. The right hon. Gentleman went on to imply that retired officers who criticised the Government are senile, which seemed to dilute his message somewhat.
We are pleased to welcome back the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), Chairman of the Defence Committee, and to hear his points about the excellent report produced by that Committee on the Gulf war syndrome—points echoed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
The hon. and learned Gentleman then drew attention to problems of redundancy. It is important to stress them, not just because of the costs involved but also—this came into the speech by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer)—because the best recruiting agent is often someone who has been in the forces and enjoyed a fulfilling and constructive time there. Equally, it is not a good advertisement for youngsters looking for a career to see someone who has been given his P45 for compulsory redundancy from the forces. That should be taken into account when the plans are being drawn up. As the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said, the closure of careers offices and compulsory redundancies send out all the wrong signals.
The hon. Member for Wyre also rightly drew attention to the value of the cadet movement, pointing out the disparity between the money spent on that movement and the positive results that it achieves, and the huge costs when youngsters go wrong and have to be put in secure accommodation. Unfortunately, he then felt the need to offer an officially approved soundbite. It often seems that, once Conservative Members have made some sensible points, they feel the need to create a diversion so that their activities will not be reported back by the Whips. They therefore throw some abuse around—but we understand why they do it.
974
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton rightly drew our attention to the position of war widows. The Ministry of Defence deals with them extremely well in the main, and with great care and consideration. That does not mean that we should ignore cases when it seems to have fallen below its usually excellent standards. I am sure that the Minister took the point on board and will refer to it in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) drew attention to the death by a thousand cuts to which the forces have been steadily subjected, contrasting that with some of the more outrageous statements made by Tory Members. It was of value to the House to hear him draw on his considerable experience in Bosnia.
The hon. Member for West Dorset also drew our attention to an article in today's Daily Express. I was slightly surprised that he stopped the quotation where he did, because it went on to say of the Secretary of State:
"But we can, I hope, also expect him to show a wider sense of history than his Prime Minister and some of his historically ignorant colleagues."
The hon. Member for West Dorset went on, rightly, to draw attention to the training role of the Army. Some of his proposals are worthy of examination because there should not be only a single route to training. In the past, the Army has provided, especially for technical training, valuable experience for many youngsters. We took on board his point about the ability of the armed forces to draw the attention of children in schools to careers in the armed forces.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) also went in for the soundbite, but at the end of his speech mentioned the Army field ambulances. He went slightly over the top in his attacks on the Labour party and Labour Governments. I gently remind him that it was a Tory Government who, before the last war, ran down defences—against the advice of the grandfather of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—a coalition that won the war and Labour that took us into NATO.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) rightly drew attention to the excellent work of the defence research establishments. We all want to pay tribute to those as centres of excellence and welcome their increasing dual-use for civilian and military technology, which as the hon. Gentleman knows, works more fully in both directions than it has in the past as technology has developed.
The announcement today of the orders for Land Rover was good news for British industry and in the case of the ambulances, it was a welcome climbdown by the Ministry of Defence. On a matter of detail, I ask the Minister to reply now, or later by correspondence, as to whether any of the new vehicles are replacements for the ill-fated RB44, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden).
More generally, why did it require hon. Members from both sides of the House, some of whom are here tonight, to create uproar for the MOD to recognise the qualities of Land-Rover? The decision would have been self-evident in other countries.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Today's announcement about Land Rover vehicles does not replace the RB44. They are steadily coming back into service as they are repaired.
Mr. Spellar: I thank the Minister for that clarification.

975
The argument over the Army field ambulance is a symbol of what is wrong with the Government's unbalanced general procurement policy. I am pleased that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will reply for the Government. We thought that there would be some movement when the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), gave evidence to the joint Select Committees on Defence and Trade and Industry in May, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside. The right hon. Member for Kettering said:
"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."
We also hoped that there would be a positive response to the joint report of the Defence and Trade Industry Committees, which drew attention to many of those points. I am afraid that our hopes were misplaced. In a parliamentary answer on 9 January, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, in talking about the white vehicles contract, stated:
"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.]
Such an attitude is widespread throughout Whitehall' because 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:
"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, of course, important considerations, but they are incomplete. The Government are trying to construct a two-legged stool. There is an important third leg, the maintenance of Britain's defence industrial base. It is recognised by the Labour party, in our document, "Strategy for a Secure Future" and by the joint report of the Select Committees on Defence and on Trade Industry, "Aspects of Defence Procurement and Industrial Policy", which states:
"We recommend that MOD endorse the view that National Security depends on a strong economy as well as strong armed forces and that it has an important role in contributing to that economic strength. We further recommend that MOD make the maintenance of the technology base of the UK defence industries a priority, and that consideration of this factor be built into the procurement process from the initial stages right through to the decision to order the equipment".
That is recognised by defence industry firms and their employees. In its evidence, the Defence Manufacturers Association said:
"MOD's procurement policies are seen as verging on the hostile to the indigenous industrial base and there is no clear defence industrial policy against which British industry can negotiate R&D co-operation from a position of strength."
It is the practice, formally or informally, of our major industrial competitors and the minor players to operate in that way. It is this Administration, with its time-warped, dogmatic approach, that is out of step. The Government are dominated by far-right dogma, conducting their theological debates to the exclusion of the country's real problems. It is very reminiscent of the Labour party in the early 1980s.
976
We must ask: when will the Government learn from the successful countries and companies in the real world, where partnership between supply and customers is the increasing pattern'? The Government seem to take an almost Orwellian stance on the issue: two legs good, three legs bad. We do not expect them to change completely; we will offer them a way out. The Government may say, "Two legs good, three legs better." They will then have a balanced procurement policy.
The Land-Rover example provides another major lesson. The Rover group, its employees and their unions have worked together increasingly as a partnership to compete in the global market. That partnership is replicated in many other defence firms across the country. Their message to Government is the same as the message from the Select Committee: partnership at industry level must be matched by long-term partnership between industry and the MOD. That is how we shall ensure that our forces get the equipment that they need and deserve, that taxpayers get value for money and that Britain's defence industry can punch its weight in the international marketplace.
The ideological approach that is adopted in so many areas is leading to some interesting, if extremely perverse, conclusions. In pursuit of the holy grail of the free market, the MOD is putting at a disadvantage the now private sector Royal Ordnance compared with some of its overseas competitors. In the words of the Select Committee, those competitors are
"nationalised or otherwise subsidised with protected home markets and thus frequently able to quote for UK orders at or below marginal cost".
That is without the activities of Mr. Gordon Foxley and his corrupt cohorts, who made the situation worse. That led to the purchase of duff ammunition and to disaster for the Blackburn ordnance factory. The Minister will also be aware of the considerable disquiet about the below-cost order for target ammunition from Portugal for Bisley. That has again had an effect on one of our ordnance factories.
We understand that the 81 mm mortar order, worth £100 million, is just around the corner. The product was sold previously to 40 countries, including the United States in the face of a "buy American" policy. Yet our firms must face a "sell Britain short" policy. Its prime architect is the Secretary of State's pal, David Hart, whose philosophy was summed up in a line of his article which appeared in The Spectator on 6 February 1993. In the article, he talked about purchasing F15s and fitting new avionics in Britain, so that
"British Aerospace can stay in business, if it must".
What a dismissive attitude to adopt to Britain's top exporter, and what a revealing comment about Mr. Hart's attitude to Britain's industrial base.
The Government's policy is also adrift of reality in relation to the sale of the married quarters estate. The current indications from mortgage companies point towards some level of upturn in house prices, which will continue into next year. We know that they do not have the best prediction record, but it would be a bold Minister who would go on the record tonight as forecasting a further decline in house prices—especially in light of the Prime Minister's assurances on Tuesday.
If we are to believe the Evening Standard, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has not been too successful in his efforts to sell his flat, so he knows the problems

977
that abound in the property market. However, at the possible bottom of the price cycle, the MOD is rushing at breakneck speed into a sale of its housing. If a company did that, the pundits would view it as a sign of impending bankruptcy.
The situation is worse than that. The MOD is also committed to an open-ended contract, whereby it will pay either a fixed sum or an aggregate of total market rents—whichever is the higher—while the rent assessment officers and the tribunals are pushing up rents well above the rate of inflation and the increase in the cost of housing. We do not even know whether NAPNOC—no acceptable price, no contract—will apply. It is the give-away sale of the century.
Who will benefit? The forces will not benefit. They are known to be very concerned about the disruptive effect of the scheme, especially for relocation of troops in future. The service men would probably do far better under the discounted sales scheme. It appears from a parliamentary answer to me today that the scheme is at risk. The answer reads:
"The future of the scheme is being evaluated in the context of the proposals to transfer the married quarters estate to the private sector."
As the answer makes clear, the scheme has been popular with service personnel.
People who are looking for rented homes in the area will not benefit. Even local builders may be undermined if faced with possible release of property in the area. We are faced with a dogma-driven exercise, probably pushed by the right-wing guru, David Hart. The prospectus of the MOD for purchases makes that clear. It reads:
"The Government is determined to sustain"—
Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Spellar: Yes.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the Labour party committed to the married quarters estates sale? Would it reverse it? What would it do about it?
Mr. Spellar: I thought that I had made it clear that the last thing anyone would do now would be to sell property at the bottom of the market and then put it out on the basis of market rents, as they increased—[Interruption.] The Minister is trying to shout me down. It seems that he is desperate to sell now and pay later. He is not even—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Member but the Minister is not.
Mr. Spellar: I think that the Minister did not like the thought of what the next passage would be. We are told that the Government
"is determined to sustain the revival in the private rented sector that deregulation has achieved. We will encourage more investors into the market, legislating to allow investment trusts to be created, making institutional investment in rented housing more attractive. We shall further deregulate private renting to reduce the burdens on small landlords."
That is what it is all about. These matters are driven not by defence needs but by Tory dogma. To paraphrase the words of the hon. Member for Wyre, it is the needs of
978
estate agents, not those of the defence estate, that arc driving the policy.
We have dwelt, inevitably, on our criticisms of the operations of MOD and of Ministers in matters that divide us. We should not, however, let our criticisms obscure the matters that unite us. There is a determination on both sides of the House to ensure the defence of the United Kingdom and to ensure that the men and women who undertake that task have the best training and equipment possible. Finally, there is our pride in the record of our troops as they fulfil their duties at home and abroad.
9.47 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): It has been a privilege to take part in the debate. With the exception of one speech, it has been a debate of exceptionally high quality. Accordingly, I do not want to waste too much time on what must surely have been one of the most small-minded speeches made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) that I have heard in the House. He demeaned himself and, sadly, with it, the House. I hope that he will not re-read it. If he does so, he will feel that he has not done himself justice.
The debate has raised a tremendous number of issues. Inevitably, I shall not be able to cover them all this evening. I shall ensure that either I or my hon. Friend the Minister of State will write to hon. Members to whose points I have not been able to respond.
We have heard many speeches of distinction, including those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer), who made some constructive points about recruitment, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves). I am particularly sad that I shall not be able to reply in detail to the excellent points that were made, on a wide range of matters, by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), but time does not permit it.
It is has been a helpful debate because it has given me the opportunity to say something about defence procurement policy, which has attracted a good deal of interest recently, and rightly so. It is the key to ensuring that the Army and other services have the equipment that they need to carry out the many tasks required of them and to obtain the best value for the taxpayers' money.
The 1995 public expenditure survey settlement reflects the Government's firm belief in strong defence and the rigorous management of money provided by the taxpayer. The new plans affirm our determination to maintain a period of stability in defence planning, which is vital to the long-term decisions that are necessary for defence. My hon. Friends the Members for Southport (Mr. Banks) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) were quite right in what they said about the need for stability.
But we cannot be complacent about what will happen over the next few years, because a healthy and technologically advanced defence industry is an important national asset, and I will not allow the Labour party to suggest that we think otherwise. We do not take its continuation for granted. As a Government, we take a

979
keen interest in the health of the United Kingdom's defence industry, although we do not share the protectionist and dirigiste tendencies of some of our allies, or of the Labour party. We monitor the effects of our procurement policies and have regular contacts with industry at all levels, and we listen to the concerns of industry.
An important contribution to the debate in that area has been the recent joint report by the Select Committees on Defence and on Trade and Industry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred. The report was thoughtful, wide-ranging and extremely constructive. My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are considering it carefully and the Government will respond to the Committees shortly. I do not want to pre-empt that response, but it might be useful if I say a few words about some of the current issues.
First, on equipment collaboration, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, in a thoughtful and considered speech, the rising cost of defence equipment and reductions in defence expenditure have made collaboration in equipment procurement an increasingly important means of keeping costs down. It also provides opportunities for UK industry to enter new' markets and to create new alliances. That is underlined by the large number of current collaborative equipment programmes with our European partners. We are involved in some 25 projects with France; 22 with Germany. Other significant European partners include Italy and The Netherlands.
I met my German opposite number, Herr Jörg Schönbohm, in London this morning to discuss areas of co-operation, and we discussed yesterday's announcement by the German defence Minister of Germany's intention to increase its commitment to Eurofighter from 140 to 180 aircraft, which we very much welcome. We agreed that that resolves the question of production work sharing, subject to the settlement of some details by officials of the four partner nations, and it will provide a firm basis for planning by industry and the partner nations for the commencement of future phases of the project. I know that the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre will agree that that is excellent news for the Eurofighter project and for British industry.
Collaboration with European partners is often easiest to arrange. There are fewer problems when partners are of roughly equal size. But we also welcome opportunities to collaborate with the United States. As in Europe, successful collaboration is often rooted in strong commercial relationships between the industries concerned. The UK defence industry has many links with US companies, and we hope that these will continue to provide a basis for further co-operation. We certainly do not see. collaboration as confined to Europe. Nor do we see it as a goal in itself. It is only one means by which we aim to maximise what we can achieve with the defence budget.
Our major aim must continue to be to seek maximum value from the defence budget. That underlies all our procurement activity. Over the past decade, our policies have undoubtedly been highly successful in securing that.
980
They have also made a major contribution to turning UK defence industries into the effective and internationally competitive businesses that they are today.
Exports play an important part in the role of defence industries. The recent performance of the UK defence companies in achieving overseas orders has been excellent. Provisional results for 1995 suggest that, in a world market that has reduced in size by around 10 per cent. compared with 1994, UK export orders are up by around 10 per cent. to some £5 billion. That represents a welcome increase in the UK market share from under 16 per cent. in 1994 to some 19 per cent. in 1995. That is the second highest share ever achieved by the UK, and in performance it remains second only to the much larger United States defence industry.
That success is due not only to the growing competitiveness of UK defence companies, but it reflects the high standard of their products and the commitment of the defence export services organisation, the armed forces and Ministers in supporting companies in their efforts to win export business.
If we are to maintain that level of business in an increasingly competitive environment, industry and Government must continue to work together. To that end we have developed, with industry, a strategic plan. It identifies and prioritises the opportunities and sets out strategies for winning the available business, including finance and offset which are key elements in winning orders in today's market.
The Army's equipment has faced an extended and searching examination in recent years from the rigours of the terrain and climate of Bosnia. That has been referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Wimbledon, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton). That equipment has passed with flying colours.
In last year's debate on the Army, my predecessor drew the attention of the House to the excellent performance of Warrior and our tracked armoured reconnaissance vehicles. Both they and the DROPS logistic vehicles have continued to perform extremely well. All types of armoured vehicle have been maintained at a high level of operational availability at all times.
Bosnia has also enabled my Department and industry to show their skill at responding quickly to urgent operational requirements. There have been many examples, but I want to single out the rapid development and deployment of the prototype HALO sound ranging equipment used for locating hostile artillery. The requirement was identified and agreed, a contract placed, and the system deployed within a matter of months. It made its first successful detection almost immediately. It is an excellent illustration of the speed and effectiveness of response by the MOD and industry working closely together with a common aim.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to our decisions on utility vehicles and ambulances. That matter has been raised by a number of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden).

981
As regards the utility vehicles, two companies responded to the invitation to tender—Land-Rover and Steyr Daimler Puch. It was concluded that the Steyr Daimler Puch vehicle was too expensive and it was ruled out three years ago. However, following trials the Steyr vehicle was selected to meet the more demanding truck utility medium heavy duty requirement, and is now successfully in service. We have announced today an order for a further 65 of those vehicles which have proved to be excellent.
The Land Rover vehicle, known commercially as Defender XD, has been subjected to extensive and rigorous trialling in order to ensure that it can meet the high standards of reliability which are essential for operational military vehicles. Therefore, I am pleased to have been able to announce earlier today that, subject to the satisfactory completion of contractual negotiations, I propose to place an order with Land-Rover for about 8,000 vehicles. That order is worth about £170 million. It will bring substantial industrial and employment benefits to Land-Rover, and enhance the vehicle's already excellent prospects in export markets.
The battlefield ambulance programme has particular importance for the services. That has been discussed at some length today. It was a close contest. Both vehicles demonstrated excellent technical qualities, but the reasons for our deciding in favour of Land-Rover and for placing. an order for some 800 ambulances with it have been well set out in the debate. The decision is good news for the armed forces and it will bring substantial industrial and employment benefits to Land-Rover and to Marshall of Cambridge.
We have heard of the pride of the United Kingdom in fulfilling its role in the world. The Government are determined to ensure that the UK will continue to earn the respect of others in all that we do, and that we will be well able to meet the challenges and changes that we must face.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Mineworkers (Bronchitis and Emphysema)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells]
10 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: This debate concerns compensation for mineworkers suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please?
Mr. Clapham: I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from your involvement in the early 1970s in the fight to win compensation for victims of pneumoconiosis that you are well conversant with the matter. I am also aware that the Minister knows the arguments: over a period, we have corresponded on the matter of compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
For many years, the mining unions have sought to have chronic bronchitis and emphysema prescribed as industrial diseases by the Department of Social Security in relation to coal mining, and to have them included—this is part of the argument tonight—as compensatable diseases. I am advised that records show that the issue of compensation payments for the diseases was raised as long ago as the early 1940s. They have still not been realised.
It will be argued that the system of assessing disability as in the case of pneumoconiosis could form the basis of a compensation scheme. Therefore, it will be necessary tonight to explain the intricate connection between the two schemes.
As the Minister will be aware, in 1992, after a study of up-to-date evidence available, not only in England and from around the world, especially America and Belgium, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council accepted that coal miners were more likely than individuals in the general population to contract chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and that therefore, on the balance of probability, the diseases were related to their occupation.
Eventually, on 13 September 1993—but, sadly, in the wake of the massive colliery closure programme—the Government implemented the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommendations in full, and prescribed chronic bronchitis and emphysema as PDD 12 in relation to the deep coal mining industry.
To be successful for an award under the DSS scheme, a claimant must first qualify by having worked underground for 20 years or more since 5 July 1948. I mention that because I recently dealt with the case of a man who had worked the length of the qualification period, but who had done so before 1948. He was ruled out because that period of qualification preceded the 1948 industrial injuries legislation. Perhaps that is something that needs to be reconsidered.
The claimant must next show that, on X-ray evidence, he has pneumoconiosis. Finally, he must have a loss of at least one litre of lung capacity as measured by the FEV 1 test. I am aware that that criterion is subject to a further

983
review by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, and that that should be available shortly. I am also aware that that may well have an impact on what we are debating. I took that into consideration when calculating figures about compensation that I shall put to the Minister later.
If a claimant successfully negotiates all the hurdles to which I have referred, and is diagnosed as suffering from the disease and a resulting disability of 14 per cent. or more, he is awarded benefit for loss of faculty, along with a weekly pension. I must emphasise, however, that that is not compensation paid because the employer is in breach of either statutory or common law duty; nor is it a payment made by the industry in recognition of the existence of a foreseeable risk. It is a payment in recognition of the physical impairment of the claimant's lung function.
I strongly believe that miners suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema—terribly disabling diseases—should also be paid compensation by their employers, or former employers, under the coal industry's no-fault liability scheme, or pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, which was introduced by the Government in 1974 as part of their "Plan for Coal". However, because the nationalised industry insured its own risks, the scheme was to all intents and purposes a Government scheme. Since privatisation, the Coal Authority administers compensation schemes in regard to former miners' claims for pneumoconiosis.
There is an overwhelming case for miners who suffer from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. There are four main arguments. First, there is the issue of liability. I maintain that that issue has already been resolved by the introduction of the no-fault liability scheme for coal-dust-related diseases, which recognises the foreseeability of the risk.
The second argument is closely related to the first. The dust that causes pneumoconiosis also causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The foreseeability, and hence the risk, of anyone's contracting chronic bronchitis and emphysema is precisely the same as for pneumoconiosis. The liability issue is thus resolved.
The case of the Selwood brothers, constituents of mine, illustrates my point. The brothers have worked together in drivages for most their working lives; the three of them are now in their late seventies. One is a prescribed sufferer of pneumoconiosis at a level of 80 per cent., with an attendant 20 per cent. level of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. He receives an award from the Department of Social Security scheme based on a level of 100 per cent., because the Department rightly accepts that chronic bronchitis and emphysema worsen his pneumoconiosis. He also receives a payment under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme.
His brothers, however—although diagnosed as suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema by the hospital consultant—receive no award. Even if they received one, under the DSS system they would not be eligible for a compensation payment. Yet the brother who has pneumoconiosis with attendant chronic bronchitis and emphysema has received a compensation payment. Although it is right that he should have received it, it is ridiculous that the others have not. It is one of the primary
984
reasons why the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme should he extended to cover chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
I turn to the other two arguments. Most of the men who have received an award for chronic bronchitis and emphysema are elderly, and have neither the time nor the resources to finance a lengthy court case, which might not at the end of the day be accepted as a test case.
There is also a difficulty with legal aid. As I understand it, in order to be granted legal aid, claimants have first to be in receipt of an award for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and therefore in receipt of a weekly pension. Part of that weekly pension must be taken into account for legal aid purposes. So even though they have been made an award, and they are at a time of life when they ought to be using that award to enjoy what little quality of life they have, they are having to use it to finance court cases.
It is likely that the Minister will argue that, in 1974, the mining unions agreed not to widen the scheme. That may be correct, but it was 22 years ago. Surely the men cannot be denied justice on the basis of something that happened to be said in negotiations all those years ago. Neither can the matter be left to common law, as the Prime Minister has suggested. The liability issue has been resolved, and the men have a just case for compensation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We are talking about legislation introduced by the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means many years ago. My hon. Friend referred to the widening of the scheme that was introduced in 1974 by Eric Varley. Towards the end of that Government's period in office, they made an addition to the scheme, so that it was slightly different for slate miners and others in north Wales. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that that set a precedent, and it is therefore not much of a hop, step and a jump to argue the case, which he is so capably arguing, that sufferers from chronic bronchitis and emphysema should be included in the general ambit of the scheme.
Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that point to my notice. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that the scheme has already been amended and widened to take into account the fact that some miners were diagnosed as suffering from asbestosis.
I have said that the DSS assessments of disability should be used to form the basis for compensation awards. I shall briefly explain the calculation used, because I think that it could be used in precisely in the same way for chronic bronchitis and emphysema cases.
The coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme payments are generally made in a lump sum. They are calculated according to a table, relating set amounts to the age of the claimant, the date of development of disease and the degree of disability under the DSS system. The table increases in multiples of 10, from 10 per cent. to 100 per cent. The greater the degree of disability, the larger the amount of money paid. Of course, those amounts taper off the older the claimant is, in accordance with actuarial principles.

985
I should like to emphasise to the Minister that it is at this point that the DSS scheme becomes part of the basis for compensation under the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme.
Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend explained the differences, and made comparisons, between those with chronic bronchitis, emphysema and pneumoconiosis. Would he care to comment—I speak from personal experience—on the problems which some former miners have had over the years? Those people have perhaps worked on the coal face all their lives, gone to boards time after time to try to prove that they have pneumoconiosis and have failed dismally. When one of those people dies, it may be accepted, after further arguments, that the person had pneumoconiosis, but it is still not enough, because one must then prove that the person died as a result of pneumoconiosis.
Will my hon. Friend accept that that is a degrading experience for those who have devoted their lives to the coal industry and worked in the dirtiest and most dangerous conditions, who then have to end their lives in that way without the state accepting responsibility or recognising their condition?
Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. When the miners' parliamentary group made a submission to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, we suggested that there should be changes in the way posthumous cases are dealt with. It is harrowing for a family to have to nurse an aged miner, watch him die in a degrading situation, and then to find that, after reviewing the evidence and probably after a number of medical examinations, pneumoconiosis is discovered by a post mortem. I agree that there is a need for a much more sensitive examination system.
I should like to discuss the amounts of compensation available under the pneumoconiosis scheme. The Minister is aware that there have been no increases in payments under the scheme since 1989. When he replies, perhaps he could assure us that the system will be corrected. Perhaps he could tell us whether the scheme will be index-linked—it has not been index-linked in the past—so that the lump sums keep their value.
Another reason why chronic bronchitis and emphysema should come under the pneumoconiosis scheme is that, although they are different diseases, the disabling effects are very similar. It would be relatively easy to combine both diseases within the scope of the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, which would be ideal for the sufferers of chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It would remove a great deal of worry about having to progress with court cases at a time of life when those chaps ought not to have such a worry.
I still represent miners before the medical appeals tribunals, and my experience suggests that chronic bronchitis and emphysema sufferers need more care, although I should add that that is not universally so. My experience suggests that the sufferers tend invariably to be elderly, and many of them are confined to their homes.
Paying for the widening of the scheme is obviously near and dear to the Minister's heart. The money to pay for the widening of the coal industry pneumoconiosis compensation scheme to cover chronic bronchitis and emphysema is available from the receipts from the sale of
986
British Coal's property. It is selling, off more than 130,000 acres of agricultural land, which includes 800 houses and an assortment of other property. I understand that the estimated value is well in excess of £100 million. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that is the case.
The total number of claims in the first year was 4,469, and there have been another 440 this year, so there arc 4,909 cases. We know that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is undertaking a study. Even the most favourable amendments will not double the number of cases, so we are discussing fewer than 10,000 cases.
All the men covered by the current scheme are elderly, and under the current pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, a man of assessed at 40 per cent. would receive £3,015. As the scheme involved a greater number in the first year, there will be fewer cases in future. The cost of paying each case a lump sum of £3,015 is roughly £30 million. Even with favourable amendments, there is enough money in receipts from the sale of property easily to cover bringing chronic bronchitis and emphysema under the scheme.
10.20 pm
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for giving the House the opportunity to debate an important issue. I wish that we had a little more than nine minutes in which to give full justice to the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I commend him on the way in which he has set out a particularly complex matter, and his determination in fighting for the interests of people affected by it. As he said, we have spoken and corresponded a number of times. I also appreciate the presence of the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who take an interest in the subject.
As you will understand from your personal experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the issue is complex, and extremely emotive. That is understandable, and the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has referred to some of the trauma it can cause. Whatever the difference in view between medical experts on the causation of bronchitis and emphysema, there is no doubt that the effects on those who suffer from those diseases—particularly emphysema—can be harrowing and distressing for them and their families.
When the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme was established, it was intended to compensate those who suffer from a condition that can be contracted only through coal mining, although, as has been pointed out to the House, some closely related conditions have been added since.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that some of the mining unions signed an undertaking that they would not press for further compensation schemes for industrial diseases other than pneumoconiosis. However, I recognise that life moves on, and I do not see why that should be an all-restricting bar.
I am fully aware that the hon. Gentleman is very keen for the scheme established by British Coal to be extended to encompass chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It may be helpful if I explain some of the corporation's position.
In the early 1970s, the National Coal Board, as it then was, introduced the scheme to provide compensation without proof of fault, because the causal link between

987
contracting pneumoconiosis and working in the coal mining industry was clear. However, it is well known that smoking is a major cause of bronchitis and emphysema, so it could not he appropriate for British Coal to compensate individuals on a no-fault basis, when, if they smoked, they contributed to their own subsequent misfortune. That does not prevent any cases being brought against British Coal.
The hon. Member has drawn attention to the possibility of the Department of Social Security paying benefits in certain circumstances. Before elaborating on that, it might be useful if I briefly explained the background to the prescription of chronic bronchitis and emphysema for DSS benefit purposes, with the caveat that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security may obviously want to comment in more detail on matters relating to these issues.
The Secretary of State for Social Security is advised on the prescription of diseases for social security benefit purposes by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. As the House knows, that is an independent, expert body, on which the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry are equally represented.
Having considered the issues several times for nearly 20 years, the council was eventually persuaded in August. 1992 to recommend to the Secretary of State that chronic bronchitis and emphysema should be prescribed as industrial diseases for underground coal miners. The DSS accepted the council's recommendation in full, and those diseases were prescribed in September 1993.
Workers in many industries, including coal miners, suffer from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. The latter can develop as part of the natural aging of the lung, and severe damage can be caused by smoking. In fact, I am given to understand that more than 90 per cent. of the overall United Kingdom deaths due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—a generic term embracing emphysema—are considered to be due to smoking.
While miners were obviously not allowed to smoke underground, I understand that their consumption of tobacco was close to the national average. The House will appreciate that it would involve fairly heavy smoking sessions afterwards if one had to catch up to somewhere near the national average.
For the purposes of claiming industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, a claimant needs to have a chest radiograph showing at least category one in the International Labour Organisation's "Classification of Radiographs of Pneumoconiosis". I should emphasise, however, that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommended that criterion as an indication of exposure to coal dust, rather than a clear causal link between the two diseases.
I know that the hon. Member—and others—regard the qualifying criteria for DSS benefit as too stringent. I also know that the House will appreciate that I cannot comment in great detail on what is a matter for the
988
Secretary of State for Social Security, but it is worthy of note that the success rate among claimants to date of 11.2 per cent. is broadly in line with the success rate for prescribed diseases in general, which is about 11 per cent.
As the hon. Member stated, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is conducting a review into the qualifying conditions, and I believe that he has given advice and some evidence to the review on that matter. The council hopes to submit a report to DSS Ministers on the review early this year, and the Government have made it clear that they will carefully consider any recommendations that the council may make.
One of the arguments advanced to support the proposition that British Coal should recognise a causal link between coal dust and bronchitis and emphysema is that the qualifying criteria under the DSS scheme include evidence of category one pneumoconiosis. It is worth emphasising that that criterion merely shows that the individual concerned was exposed to coal dust: it does not show that a particular level or degree of exposure relates directly to the specific incapacity experienced by the individual.
Category one, although widely recognised as an indication of the condition, is not in itself a level that causes disablement. That is one reason why British Coal's scheme requires successful claimants to have at least category two pneumoconiosis. Thus, individuals who are certified as suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema for DSS purposes are not necessarily eligible for benefits under the British Coal scheme.
If they have pneumoconiosis at a lower level—that is, category one—they may be entitled to DSS benefit. If they have a higher level of pneumoconiosis—that is, category two—they may be entitled to compensation from British Coal. Conceivably, if they have a category two level, accompanied by bronchitis and emphysema, they may qualify for compensation from both sources. The hon. Gentleman produced an example to illustrate that point. As we have already noted, IIAC is looking into the matter again, to find out whether any changes to the DSS scheme to provide for additional compensation seem appropriate.
I said at the start that I wished that I had more time to give a full response to the hon. Gentleman. In the very short time that I have taken—at the gallop—I have not been in a position to set out the situation as fully as I should have liked. I understand the strength of feeling on the subject.
The hon. Gentleman and I know that it is a complex matter. He has presented to the House a way in which the existing scheme might be amended, and has given much time and thought to that matter. He would be upset if I gave an off-the-cuff response, and I will come hack to him—
The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Homelessness
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of(a) the number of hostel places available for the homeless in London, (b) the number of unused hostel places in London, (c) the number of empty council houses in (i) central London and (ii) the old LCC area and (d) the estimated number of rough sleepers in London. [8876]

  Mr. Clappison
  The information requested on hostel places for the homeless is not held centrally.

  The 1995 housing investment programme returns from London borough in the former LCC area show a total of 13,879 vacant local authority dwellings on 1 April 1995, the latest date for which figures are available. Of these, 6,049 were management vacants—that is, dwellings available for letting immediately or after minor repairs. A report containing the figures for individual borough—"1995 HIP1 All Items Print"—will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Information about the extent of rough sleeping is mostly anecdotal or estimated, except for central London where voluntary sector agencies carry out a twice-yearly count of rough sleepers. The methodology for this arose from an independent evaluation of the rough sleepers initiative, commissioned by my Department. The most recent count, in November 1995, found 272 people sleeping rough in central London.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the total numbers of homeless individuals in(a) England, (b) Greater London, (c) outer London and (d) inner London in each year since 1991. [8914]

  Mr. Clappison
  The number of households for which local authorities accepted responsibility to secure accommodation, under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act, were as follows in the years 1991 to 1995:

  Year

  England

  Greater London

  Inner London

  Outer London

  1991

  144,780

  37,060

  21,950

  15,110

  1992

  142,890

  37,840

  22,630

  15,210

  1993

  132,380

  31,890

  17,550

  14,340

  1994

  122,660

  28,810

  16,330

  12,480

  Note:

  1 Covering City of London, Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringy, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Westminster.

  Source:

  P I E Quarterly returns.

  Contaminated Land (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on contaminated land in the district of Easington; and if he will list the locations of contaminated sites. [9578]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government set out their policy on contaminated land in England in the document "Framework for Contaminated Land", published in November 1994. The document proposed a modern contaminated land power, which has been provided in section 57 of the Environment Act 1995. This will apply to any contaminated land in Easington in the same way as elsewhere.

  The Department of the Environment does not keep records on individual contaminated sites.

  Noise Pollution
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has had on the problems of(a) noise pollution and (b) noisy neighbours. [7850]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department continues to receive representations about all forms of environmental noise on a regular basis. The vast majority of representations relate to neighbour noise issues.

  Following the review of neighbour noise controls, a package of measures is being taken forward aimed at strengthening the controls over excessive noise from domestic premises and improving local authority noise services and liaison with the police through guidance and dissemination of best practice.

  The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is taking forward a private Member's Bill which will introduce clearer powers for temporary confiscation of noise making equipment and a new criminal offence to deal with excessive noise at night from domestic premises.

  GLC Heritage Collection
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which body is now responsible for the safekeeping of the Greater London council heritage collection inventory. [8763]

  Sire Paul Beresford
  The inventory of the GLC's heritage collection has been held at the Greater London record office since 1 April 1986.

  Gulf War (Pollution)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental damage caused by the deliberate release of oil into the Gulf between Khafji and the island of Abu Ai during the Gulf war; how many bird mortalities resulted from the pollution; and if the final ecological assessment of damage in the Gulf has now been made. [9085]

  Mr. Clappison
  A report by the United Nations environment programme on the environmental effects of the Gulf war was presented to the UNEP Governing Council in May 1993—UNEP GC.7 Inf.9. The report included an assessment of the impact of oil released into
  665
  the Gulf during the conflict, including an assessment of bird mortalities. More than 30,000 birds are believed to have died during the conflict. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House. Further studies into possible long-term effects are largely a matter for the states in the region.

  Habitat II Conference
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the United Kingdom's involvement in the Habitat II conference on sustainable communities; what are the implications of Habitat II for his Department's planning and housing policies; and if he will make a statement on his future objectives for Habitat II. [9951]

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom is taking an active part in the preparations for the United Nations conference on human settlements. We, together with our EU partners, are contributing to the drafting of the "Habitat Agenda" which is to be the major output of the conference.

  My Department is co-ordinating the preparation of the UK's national report for the conference. We are also working closely with a wide range of organisations—local government, non-governmental and professional—through the UK National Council for Habitat II.

  In respect of the future objectives for Habitat II, my Department will promote internationally UK ideas, policies and best practice and use the conference to raise international and national awareness of the means to achieve sustainable development.

  We will need to await the outcome of Habitat II before determining the implications for my Department's planning and housing policies.

  Erewash Borough Council
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered the responses by Erewash borough council to the notice served on it on 7 September 1995 under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement. [10411]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has considered carefully the responses which Erewash borough council has made to the notice served on the authority on 7 September 1995, and has today given the authority a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  After careful consideration, the Secretary of State remains of the opinion that the authority acted in an anti-competitive manner in awarding a contract to its in-house direct labour organisation in favour of a bid which was £70,000 cheaper, because it did not have well founded reasons for doing so. He feels that, in assigning the contract of £326,150 to its DSO, the authority did not show that it had carried out an adequate assessment of the private contractor's abilities.

  The direction given to Erewash borough council requires the authority to retender the contract for a ground maintenance contract, which was the subject of the notice, so that new arrangements are in place by 1 January 1997, and to seek my right hon. Friend's consent should it wish to reassign the work in-house.

  Leaseholders
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he plans to take to strengthen the rights of owners of leasehold flats. [10859]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received a large number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members and leaseholders, particularly in London, about allegations that some landlords have been behaving unreasonably. The allegations are that a number of landlords have been buying up freeholds of blocks of flats and then presenting the leaseholders with very large maintenance and service charge bills. The amounts demanded appear to be excessive in relation to the work required, and the landlords can make a substantial profit by employing associated surveyors, contractors and managing agents, and earning commission. Any leaseholders who challenge the service charges are met with aggression and intimidation from the landlord and threatened with forfeiture of the lease.

  There is already a considerable body of legislation offering safeguards to leaseholders. After careful consideration of these recent developments, however, I have decided that further action should now be taken to strengthen leaseholders' rights.

  I therefore propose the following legislative amendments. First, I propose a number of changes to the right of first refusal contained in part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to help ensure that tenants are given the opportunity to exercise this right if their landlord wishes to dispose of his interest. Secondly, I shall amend the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, so that qualifying leaseholders will have a right to enfranchise where their block of flats has more than one freehold interest. Thirdly, I intend to give a recognised residents' association a right to challenge major works proposed by its landlord before the work has commenced. Fourthly, I shall amend the law of forfeiture so that forfeiture proceedings are separated from disputes over service charges. Fifthly, I shall strengthen the grounds available to leaseholders seeking to require the court to appoint a manager of their block of flats where the landlord is failing to carry out his obligations in a reasonable manner.

  Finally, I am concerned about the cost which leaseholders can face in pursuing their rights through the courts and I am considering the possibility of transferring disputes over service charges to leasehold valuation tribunals.

  I will bring forward amendments to the Housing Bill, which is being introduced today, to give effect to these proposals.

  I have today placed a note in the Library of the House which outlines these proposals in more detail.

  Home Safety
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to provide specific funding for local authorities to provide home safety initiatives; [9682]

  (2) what plans he has to make the provision of home safety initiatives a mandatory function of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [9683]
  667
  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. Local authorities all over the country are already engaged in productive crime prevention/community safety initiatives with the police, local businesses and the voluntary sector. This has been achieved without central funding and without the burden of a new statutory responsibility. I see no need to change arrangements which have worked so well.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what analysis he has made of the consequences in Scotland of the changes to the budget of the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a, statement. [9382]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply. There will be no impact on low-income households in Scotland. The reduction in the budget will be met by requiring better-off householders who qualify for HEES grants because of their age to make a contribution of 75 per cent. towards the cost of the work.

TRANSPORT

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of staffing levels within the Marine Safety Agency to cope with a marine accident on the scale of the Estonia accident. [8231]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 18 January 1996:
  I am responding to your question to the Secretary of State for Transport asking what assessment has been made of the adequacy of staffing levels within the Marine Safety Agency (MSA) to cope with a marine accident on the scale of the ESTONIA accident.
  The MSA is currently operating to a complement of some 175 professional and 190 administrative staff. Approximately half of these are based in our Southampton HQ, and the remainder are spread throughout the UK. I am satisfied that staffing levels are sufficient to undertake the tasks agreed in our Business and Corporate Plans. If another incident of the magnitude of the ESTONIA were to occur, then priorities would be reassessed.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify any letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7827]

  Sir George Young
  When my Department's agency chief executives are invited by Ministers to write to hon. Members to provide information sought in parliamentary questions, their replies are subject to ministerial approval. Letters that were amended in draft by Ministers could be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Port of Fishguard
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the Rail Franchising Director the introduction of a minimum passenger service requirement covering the port of Fishguard; and if he will make a statement. [8970]

  Mr. Watts
  No. The detailed specification of passenger service requirements is a matter for the Franchising Director. Services to Fishguard will be covered by the PSR for the South Wales and West Railway on which the Franchising Director will be consulting in due course. The new franchisee for Great Western train services—Great Western Holdings—has specifically committed to maintain the overall number of services in the 1995–96 timetable between London Paddington and Fishguard, until the timetable for 1999–2000 and subject to connecting ferry services continuing to operate during that period.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Consumers Association regarding the quotation of rail ticket prices; what assessment he has made; if he will make it his policy to require rail staff to quote the lowest possible fare available; and if he will make a statement. [8732]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been sent a copy of the Which? survey into British Rail's ticketing and information services.

  The survey is based on a small and selective sample of routes and does not provide a representative picture of BR's performance. Nevertheless, passengers have a right to expect accurate travel information and it has been recognised for some time that the present arrangements need improvement. A national train information system is being developed for the new railway, and rail privatisation, by introducing sector energy and know-how, should help address the shortcomings of the current systems.

  Operators are already required to provided impartial and comprehensive information about rail fares.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the MV Derbyshire family association regarding the proposed inquiry into the loss of the MV Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [9582]

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently consulting the Derbyshire family association on the arrangements for the return expedition to the wreck of the Derbyshire. We will take account of its views in defining the objectives and priorities of the expedition to ensure that this final re-examination is meticulously planned in the hope that we can gather as much information as possible about the cause of the loss, with resulting benefits to ship safety.

  Rail Services (Adverse Weather)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instruct Railtrack to seek advice from
  669
  Austrian Railways on maintaining services in adverse weather conditions. [9826]

  Mr. Watts
  No. Railtrack maintains the infrastructure for which it is responsible in accordance with its contractual obligations to train operators and to rigorous safety standards which are overseen by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Road Tax Evasion
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce road tax evasion. [9894]

  Mr. Norris
  A number of initiatives are planned. A scheme to wheel clamp vehicles for excise duty offences will be introduced in London shortly. Measures to improve the quality of the national vehicle record to make it more difficult for motorists to drop out of the licensing system are being developed. Use of camera technology to automate the detection of offence is also being taken forward.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the procedures for road tax evasion reporting by police and traffic wardens. [9895]

  Mr. Norris
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency receives more than 1.5 million excise offence reports annually for enforcement action from the police and traffic wardens and other sources.

  The recent study by the National Audit Office on vehicle excise duty on evasion and enforcement reported that some offence reports received were of poor quality and could not be successfully pursued. The exact number of these is unclear since precise figures are not available and other categories of cases not pursued are included in the calculation. If further work identifies this as an area of concern, it will be taken up with those who provide the agency with offence reports.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to support the confiscation of unregistered and unlicensed HGVs. [9830]

  Mr. Norris
  Powers to wheel clamp and impound all types of unlicensed vehicles parked on the public road will be introduced shortly. A pilot wheel clamping scheme starting in London in February will enable us to assess the effectiveness of these powers in combating vehicle excise duty evasion.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to strengthen the enforcement of the maximum driving hours laws on foreign HGV drivers. [9831]

  Mr. Norris
  The European directive which lays down minimum targets for drivers' hours checks requires that roadside checks must be carried out without discriminating as to nationality. The UK exceeds the requirements for checks on drivers' hours. Funding for investigative work on all aspects of enforcement was increased this financial year by £350,000 and a significant proportion of this additional funding will be spent on drivers' hours checking and enforcement.

  Road Markings (Schools)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to make it a statutory offence to park within the road markings outside school gates. [9829]

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to change the existing legislation, which provides for markings outside school entrances to be either advisory or enforceable. It is the responsibility of individual traffic authorities to decide what is appropriate in the light of local circumstances.

  Freight Facilities Grants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sums have been invested by the Government under the Railways Act section 36 freight facilities grants system since 1993; and if he will make a statement. [9897]

  Mr. Watts
  The sum of £415,000 in November 1993 to the Huntsman Chemical Company Ltd. These environmental grants are awarded under section 140 of the Railways Act 1993 to help defray the capital costs of inland waterway freight facilities. In this instance, grant will enable the company to carry styrene monomer by water from Baglan bay, south Wales to its processing plant at Carrington near Manchester for the next 10 years, thereby removing some 6,000 lorry journeys a year from the roads.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long on average those waiting to take a driving test have to wait in Portsmouth. [9919]

  Mr. Norris
  Waiting times at Portsmouth are currently six weeks for car tests and two weeks for motorcycle tests—both well within our service standards.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assurances were offered by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the funding of the channel tunnel. [10115]

  Mr. Watts
  I am not aware that any assurances have been offered by the UK Government. From the start it was always envisaged that the channel tunnel would be an entirely private sector project, and that the concessionaires would have no recourse to Government funds or guarantees of a financial or commercial nature. That remains the position.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Eurotunnel in respect of the refinancing of the channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement. [10113]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from Eurotunnel on a number of issues, including the company's current financial difficulties. It has been made clear to the company that any financial restructuring of Eurotunnel is a matter for the company to resolve in discussion with its bankers, and without Government intervention.

  Road Network (Management and Maintenance)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he intends to proceed with the Highways Agency proposals for new agency arrangements for the management and maintenance of the motorway and trunk road network which were the subject of consultation last year. [10663]

  Mr. Watts
  We intend to proceed on the lines proposed in the consultation. In general, we aim to establish new agencies whose size and coverage will be based on considerations of effective management and to enlarge competition by involving the public and private sectors with both tendering against a single common agreement. We are re-examining the proposed areas and timing of implementation in the light of the decision to increase the number of design, build, finance and operate schemes announced on 29 November. We have already announced our decision on the way forward in London. It was stated in the consultation document that we would continue putting in place new agency agreements for April 1996 where current agents were ceasing to exist, as in Avon and Humberside, or current private sector agencies were due for retendering, such as the term contracts in south and west London and consultancies for the midland links and Greater Manchester agencies. These are all proceeding to plan.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many mobile telephones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each year how many different suppliers were involved. [9127]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Headquarters—and associated officers—currently have 61 live contracts for mobile telephones with British Telecom, Cellcom and Talkland.

  The telephones were supplied in each of the following years as follows:

  Supplier

  Number

  April 1990 to April 1991

  British Telecom

  3

  Cellcom

  5

  April 1991 to April 1992

  Cellcom

  3

  April 1992 to April 1993

  British Telecom

  6

  Cellcom

  9

  April 1993 to April 1994

  Talkland

  11

  British Telecom

  4

  April 1994 to April 1995

  Talkland

  1

  Cellcom

  1

  Since April 1995

  Talkland

  10

  Carphone Warehouse

  8

  Dictating Machine Co. Ltd

  8

  Information prior to 1990 is unavailable.

  I have asked the chief executives of the Court Service and the Public Trust Office to reply separately.
  672
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. William Ross, dated 18 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to the above Question about the number of mobile telephones supplied to the Court Service and the number of suppliers used.
  Not all Circuit offices keep central figures of the mobile telephones in use in their region and a number are supplied under local arrangements. To obtain more detailed information in the timescale allowed would incur a disproportionate cost. Nevertheless, I can confirm that in April 1995, the date on which the Court Service was established, approximately 411 mobile phones were in use throughout the Court Service. This figure now stands at approximately 502. Some 22 suppliers are involved.

  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. William Ross, dated 18 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 10 January 1996, regarding the number of mobile phones purchased in each of the last eight years and the number of different suppliers involved.
  The Public Trust Office has not supplied any mobile phones to its staff during the last eight years.

  Land Transfers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to extend section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 to conveyances which do not accompany a transfer of the beneficial interest in the land; and if he will make a statement. [9107]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A joint working group comprising representatives of the Law Commission, Land Registry and Lord Chancellor's Department has recommended that section 123 of the Land Registration Act 1925 should be extended to cover assents, vesting deeds, conveyances by way of gift, conveyances pursuant to a court order and first legal mortgages, and that there should be a power to extend to other dispositions after appropriate consultation. That recommendation, together with others in the working groups's report, published as Law Corn. 235, has been accepted by the Government and legislation to give effect to the recommendations will be introduced as soon as there is a suitable opportunity.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of such agencies seeking to make economies; and if he will make a statement. [9143]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor has responsibility for four agencies: The Court Service, HM Land Registry, The Public Record Office and The Public Trust Office. As the question concerns a specific operational matter, the chief executives of the Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office have been asked to reply direct. This answer is, however, given on behalf of the Court Service as the Lord Chancellor's Department welfare service provides pre-retirement courses for the Court Service. Courses are provided to meet demand and there are no plans to discontinue this practice.
  673
  Letter from Julia C. Lomas to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to respond to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 10 January 1996, regarding the action each Agency is taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of such Agencies seeking to make economies.
  The Public Trust Office does not run in-house pre-retirement courses due to the relatively small number of staff retiring each year. We do, however, offer external courses to such staff and there are no plans to discontinue this practice.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply for the Public Record Office to your question about the safeguarding of the provision of pre-retirement courses in the executive agencies for which he is responsible.
  Although the Public Record Office is making economies, it has safeguarded its provision of pre-retirement courses by maintaining the resources devoted to them at existing levels, and it plans to continue to do so.

  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1996:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the provision of pre-retirement courses. It has long been the practice within HM Land Registry to offer all staff approaching retirement age the opportunity of attending a pre-retirement course and there are no plans to restrict this facility. These courses may be run either in-house on a regional basis or by the purchase of places on courses run by other departments or organisations.
  I do hope that this answers the point raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

TREASURY

  Tax (Self-assessment)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information and advice has been given to persons likely to be affected by self-assessment; and what is expected to be given before the tax forms are sent out. [8315]

  Mr. Jack
  A substantial programme of publicity and education for those taxpayers who will be affected by self-assessment is under way. A major publicity programme aimed directly at the 9 million who get tax returns, using TV and national press, was launched in June 1995 with a second phase in the autumn. Further phases are planned until well after self-assessment has been introduced.

  The Inland Revenue recognises that self-assessment will also affect agents and employers. A major initiative has been undertaken to provide them with the information they need. Information packs were sent to 85,000 agents and 1.15 million employers last summer, which have included invitations to seminars provided by local tax offices. Over 50,000 people have attended seminars so far. Further mailshots and seminars are planned for this three-year education programme.

  An insert on self-assessment will accompany the tax return that people receive in April 1996—the last of the old-style forms. This will explain what the new system will mean for them and what steps they should take to prepare for it.
  674
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates of compliance costs for employers have been made concerning tax self-assessment in each of the last three years. [8316]

  Mr. Jack
  A single compliance cost assessment has been made to cover the overall impact of self-assessment, on employers and others, for example, the self-employed. This was published on 28 November 1994 and a copy is available in the House Library. It shows that there will be recurrent costs for employers who provide benefits to their employees—currently about a third of all employers—estimated at £20 to £30 million a year. This extra work has been kept to a minimum following extensive consultation. Those employers who are self-employed will find this to be at least partially offset by the net recurrent savings to self-employed people. The net savings to business after taking account of these and other costs are estimated at between £125 and £250 million a year.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has made to representations from the Institute of Taxation in respect of the impact of tax self-assessment; and when he responded to the institute. [8318]

  Mr. Jack
  Representatives of the Chartered Institute of Taxation sit on, and play a full part in, the Self Assessment Consultative Committee. This was set up as a forum for the Inland Revenue to meet representatives of business and the professions to discuss issues relevant to self assessment. Reports are made to Ministers on major issues arising from such discussions, and Treasury Ministers have met the committee on a number of occasions.

  The CIOT submitted its budget representations on 29 June 1995, and aspects of these, including self-assessment, were discussed at a meeting with the Deputy Chairman of the Inland Revenue on 7 July. Further meetings both by Ministers and the Inland Revenue have since been held at which CIOT representations on self-assessment have been discussed.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the overall impact on business of the introduction of tax self-assessment, disaggregated into(a) estimated extra costs and (b) estimated savings. [8210]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 11 January 1996]: Self-assessment is a major modernisation of the system of tax administration which will provide a permanent reduction for taxpayers in the costs of complying with their obligations. The changes will particularly benefit self-employed people. A compliance cost assessment detailing the estimates leading to this conclusion was published on 28 November 1994. A copy is available in the House Library.

  It contains the following summary figures:
  Self-assessment generates a recurrent compliance net saving for businesses, mainly the self-employed, of some £125 to £250 million a year.
  This figure takes account of recurrent costs to employers who provide benefits to employees are estimated at £20 to £30 million a year; some but not all of these employers will benefit from compliance savings by being self-employed.

  675
  Initial costs of adapting to the new system are estimated at £100 to £200 million.
  The typical small self-employed business which does not provide benefits in kind to employees could expect recurrent savings of £30 to £60 a year, more than offsetting the non-recurrent cost in a single year.
  The overall annual savings are net of the costs quoted by the Opposition in the press recently.

  Tax Inspectors
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax inspectors have been employed by the Inland Revenue in each of the last five years. [8312]

  Mr. Jack
  Excluding staff employed on central administration, in other supportive roles and those in certain specialist offices, the table sets out the number of tax inspectors employed at the end of each of the last five years in December, for the current year:Inspectors

  1991–92: 6,737

  1992–93: 6,808

  1993–94: 6,582

  1994–95: 6,423

  1995–96: 6,202

  The number of tax inspectors deployed on investigation work has remained broadly constant.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken in the drafting of the current Finance Bill to ensure its complexities do not inhibit those seeking to understand the rules for the purposes of self-assessment of tax. [8320]

  Mr. Jack
  Reducing complexity in the run-up to self-assessment was an important factor in deciding which measures formed part of this year's Finance Bill. Those working on the drafting of the Bill have certainly avoided where they can add to the complexity of the tax system. Indeed where possible the opportunity has been taken to simplify the rules, to make it easier for taxpayers. An example is in clause 138 on the abolition of relief for class 4 national insurance contributions.

  The most effective way to help people understand their obligations under self-assessment is through the Inland Revenue's extensive education and public information campaign which is currently under way, through clear and informative guidance and leaflets, and through proper support and assistance available through tax offices and tax inquiry centres.

  Labour Statistics (Peterlee and Seaham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the areas covered by the Peterlee and Seaham area offices are estimated to be economically inactive. [9499]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information available, from the Labour Force Survey, shows that in Durham, the county covering the Peterlee and Seaham area offices, there were 194,000 economically inactive people in summer, June to August, 1995.

  Petrol and Diesel Fuel Duty
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual total tax collected from, and on account of, Wales by way of duty on petrol and diesel fuels; and what proportion this represents of the total such duty raised in the same year for the United Kingdom. [9310]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is estimated that in 1994–95 around £600 million was raised from petrol, diesel and other hydrocarbon oils duties in Wales, accounting for approximately 4 per cent. of the United Kingdom total.

  Domestic Credit
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the levels of domestic credit for each year since 1966. [9782]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Statistics covering M4 and its counterparts—including bank and building society lending—are published by the Bank of England in "Monetary Statistics"; a longer run of data is contained in the Bank of England "Statistical Abstract", part 2.

  Arts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in the arts and related cultural activities; and what changes in these figures have occurred in each year since 1993–94 in(a) these fields and (b) overall; and if she will make a statement. [9701]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Latest available information is held in table 1.4 of the January 1996 edition of "Labour Market Trends", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of return in United Kingdom manufacturing industry in 1994 as a percentage of the rate on other commercial and industrial enterprises less North sea oil. [9787]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on rates of return by industrial and commercial companies are published in the CSO "First Release (95)136—Profitability of UK Companies". This is available from the Library of the House.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance he intends to issue to(a) departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies at arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9222]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 16 January 1996,Official Report, column 417.
  677
  The Departments and other bodies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  Newarthill
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports the Bank of England has received from its representative in the Cayman Islands about losses suffered by local subsidiaries of the company Newarthill; what action the bank has taken in respect of these; and if he will make a statement. [7805]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 11 January 1996]: None. The Bank of England has no representative in the Cayman Islands. Neither Newarthill plc nor any of its subsidiaries is subject to Bank of England supervision.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Chancellor of the Exchequer under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9588]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: No primary legislation enacted since 1979 has empowered the Chancellor of the Exchequer as such to make statutory instruments. Information concerning the procedure applicable to the power to make instruments given to HM Treasury, HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue by primary legislation enacted since 1979 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all tiger products seized in 1995 by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. [8909]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: HM Customs and Excise have yet to finalise their statistics for 1995. I can say, however, that in the first three quarters of the year to 30 September 1995 the following tiger products were seized as having been imported in breach of convention on international trade in endangered species requirements:

  1 bottle of tiger bone pills

  1 bottle of tiger bone tincture

  10 packets of tiger bone pills

  10 packets of tiger bone plasters

  5 bottles of tiger liniment

  5 sheets of musk and tiger bone plasters.

  Principal expenditure £ million

  Significant expenditure £ million

  Emergency aid £ million

  Total £ million

  Share of total PIMS marked expenditure2 Percentage

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  60.2

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  30.3

  51.1

  138.5

  219.9

  30

  1992–93

  30.8

  54.3

  142.8

  227.9

  30

  1993–94

  51.2

  39.4

  179.6

  270.2

  33

  1994–95

  51.8

  65.0

  208.9

  325.7

  39

  1 Details of PIMS are available in the 1995 edition of "British Aid Statistics", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  2Including emergency aid.

  Iraqi Assets
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum of Iraqi assets held frozen by United Kingdom banks; and what interest has accrued since the order freezing them. [9568]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The Bank of England advises that the value of Iraqi assets frozen in the United Kingdom was *769,000,000 as at 30 September 1995. This figure includes private as well as Iraqi Government assets. No figures are available for interest which has accrued, since banks are not required to and do not report them.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Budget
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much and what percentage of official United Kingdom aid was spent on(a) basic needs and (b) direct poverty reduction between 1990 and the latest year for which figures are available. [9115]

  Mr. Hanley
  (a) The following table gives the requested breakdown of bilateral ODA programme expenditure on basic needs' both including and excluding bilateral emergency aid.

  Including emergency aid

  Excluding emergency aid

  £ million

  Share of total bilateral aid Percentage

  £ million

  Share of total bilateral aid2 Percentage

  1990–91

  133.9

  12.8

  73.8

  7.5

  1991–92

  218.5

  20.3

  80.1

  8.6

  1992–93

  230.3

  20.5

  87.5

  8.9

  1993–94

  279.1

  24.2

  99.5

  10.2

  1994–95

  303.3

  27.1

  94.4

  10.4

  1 Comprises basic education, primary health care, mother/child health, family planning, nutrition, water and sanitation, and block grants to NGOs.

  2 Total bilateral aid excluding emergency aid.

  Expenditure on UK aid for direct poverty reduction can be identified only for that part of ODA expenditure which is covered by the ODA policy information marker system1—PIMS. The following table gives a breakdown of ODA expenditure which has a direct assistance to poor people marker on the PIMS system along with emergency aid which is counted as direct assistance to poor people although it is not PIMS marked.

  Dominica
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much overseas aid has been granted by Her Majesty's Government to Dominica in each year since 1990; and how much will be awarded in 1996. [9321]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 16 January 1996,Official Report, column 507 regarding past aid disbursements to Dominica.

  The aid figure for 1995–96 is not yet known. It is likely to be somewhat higher than in 1994–95 but will depend on how quickly the problem of Dominica's repayment arrears is resolved, and our capital aid programme resumed.

  Aid and Trade (Biwater Group)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the financial years since 1986 in which assistance under the aid and trade provision has been paid in respect of projects involving the Biwater group of companies. [10171]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the hon. Member on 17 February 1994,Official Report, column 937 and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 14 February 1994, Official Report, column 568. No new ATP commitments involving Biwaters have been entered into since 1988. Expenditure on previous ATP commitments ended in 1991–92.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he intends to issue to(a) Departments, (b) executive agencies,

  November 1995

  December 1995

  Number visits

  Number unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Number visits

  Number unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Slaughterhouses

  365

  44

  12

  272

  17

  6

  Hunt kennels and knackeries

  234

  38

  19

  193

  14

  7

  Many of the failings found were of a comparatively mild nature, for example problems with staining SBOs or with record keeping. There were, however, some more serious cases, including incidents in which small pieces of spinal cord were left attached to carcases after dressing in slaughterhouses. Eight such instances were detected in November and two in December, the most recent on 14 December. There have been none so far in January 1996. A total of 21 instances in which spinal cord was left attached to carcases have now been detected since the SVS surveillance programme of slaughterhouses began in the summer.
  680
  (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9230]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer to the answer given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 417. I shall ensure that my Department, and any bodies for which it is responsible, will be made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  Champagne
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many litres of champagne were imported from France in each year since 1992. [10635]

  Mr. Boswell
  Imports of champagne from France, as recorded in the overseas trade statistics, are as follows:

  1992: 11

  1993: 14

  1994: 18

  1995 to September: 9.

  Figures given in million litres.

  The 1995 figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  Bovine Offals
  Sir Jim Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the state veterinary service's surveillance of the handling of specified bovine offals in November and December 1995; and if he will make a statement. [10858]

  Mrs. Browning
  The state veterinary service, SVS, continued to make unannounced visits to slaughterhouses, hunt kennels and knackeries in November and December 1995 to monitor their handling of specified bovine offals, SBOs. The results of these visits were:

  The results of similar surveillance visits to rendering and incineration plants handling SBOs will be announced shortly.

  I welcome these significant improvements in the handling of SBOs by slaughterhouses, hunt kennels and knackeries. I expect those that have attained a satisfactory level of performance to maintain the standards they are now achieving, and would expect that those plants which have failed to do so will work harder to ensure they do fully comply with the controls. The SVS will continue its unannounced surveillance visits to plants handling SBOs.

  Intervention Beef
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he expects beef to be taken into intervention in the United Kingdom this year. [9466]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: No beef has been taken into intervention anywhere in the EU since November 1993. I do not expect any beef to be taken in 1996.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much beef was taken into intervention in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [9465]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The quantity of beef taken into intervention in the UK in each of the last 10 years was:

  1986: 46,355 tonnes

  1987: 44,322 tonnes

  1988: 38,504 tonnes

  1989: 6,967 tonnes

  1990: 77,345 tonnes

  1991: 95,939 tonnes

  1992: 68,857 tonnes

  1993: 16,650 tonnes

  1994: Nil

  1995: Nil.

  Butterflies and Moths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to increase the contribution that set-aside land makes to butterfly and moth conservation. [9296]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The management rules for set-aside land, which have been drawn up in close consultation with environmental organisations, allow farmers considerable scope to manage their land in ways which safeguard the environment and provide benefits to wildlife. We offer free conservation advice to individual farmers on the management of set-aside, including ways of improving the habitat for butterflies and moths. We are currently sponsoring two Agricultural Development Advisory Service projects in which, among other things, the populations of butterflies on set-aside land are being studied. These projects aim to demonstrate how set-aside can be managed for the benefit of plants and wildlife, including butterflies and moths.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Minister under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9596]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: This is a matter of public record and the Ministry does not hold statistics for this information. There are, however, affirmative resolution powers in part I of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1958, in the Agriculture Act 1986 and in the Agriculture Act 1993. Negative resolution
  682
  powers are contained in those Acts of Parliament and in the Animal Health Act 1981, the Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984, the Food Safety Act 1990, the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Environment Act 1995, the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980, the Diseases of Fish Act 1983, the Fisheries Act 1981 and the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures were used by his Department in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to his Department and its executive agencies; and which companies were involved in tendering for these contracts. [9738]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The Ministry awarded a contract for the supply of mobile and car phones to supply both the department and its executive agencies through a sealed bid competitive tender exercise.

  The following companies were invited to tender for the Contract:

  Motorola Ltd.

  Hutchison Telecom (UK) Ltd.

  Talkland International (UK) Ltd.

  BT Mobile Communications

  Vodac Ltd.

  Mercury Communications Ltd.

  Hutchison Telecom (UK) Ltd did not submit a tender.

  This answer includes all of the agencies with the exception of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which has answered directly.

  Letter from Mr. J. F. FitzGerald to Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, dated 16 January 1996:
  In my Chief Executive's absence, the Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the supply of mobile and car phones to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). This is an operational matter for which my Chief Executive is responsible.
  The VMD has very few requirements for mobile and car phones and we have, therefore, not awarded a contract for this supply. On the rare occasion that we need to hire a mobile phone we are able to use the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's call off contract or if this does not meet our specific need we make ad hoc arrangements for hire.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agreements his Department and its executive agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones; and if he will list the companies having these contracts, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to the public funds of each agreement. [9737]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: At present, the Ministry and its executive agencies have one agreement in place for the provision of mobile and car telephones.

  This is currently with Mercury Communications Ltd.

  The duration of the agreement is three years.
  683
  Mercury has supplied 651 telephones under the current agreement.

  The costs to public funds for this agreement are £310,574. These figures exclude VAT and any call charges.

  This answer includes all of the agencies with the exception of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which has answered directly.

  Letter from Mr. J. F. FitzGerald to Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, dated 16 January 1996:
  In my Chief Executive's absence, the Minister has asked me to reply to your question asking for details of contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). This is an operational matter for which my Chief Executive is responsible.
  The VMD does not have any contracts with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what costs his Department and executive agencies have incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and if he will list the companies concerned. [9739]

  Mr. Hogg
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: From information held centrally, no costs have been incurred in withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided.

  Selected member states of the European Union fishing fleets as at 31 December 1991

  Age in years

  Not known

  0.0–4.9

  5.0–9.9

  10.0–14.9

  15.0–19.9

  20.0–24.9

  25.0 and over

  Total

  Number of vessels

  United Kingdom

  955

  1,564

  1,381

  1,865

  1,554

  1,060

  2,525

  10,904

  Netherlands

  83

  187

  234

  235

  140

  79

  508

  1,466

  Spain

  231

  1,651

  2,409

  1,916

  2,922

  2,746

  8,713

  20,588

  Denmark

  180

  105

  303

  416

  686

  323

  1,712

  3,725

  GRT (000 tonnes)

  United Kingdom

  4

  31

  18

  31

  45

  30

  52

  211

  Netherlands

  0

  60

  47

  22

  15

  4

  24

  173

  Spain

  18

  113

  53

  53

  159

  102

  57

  656

  Denmark

  0

  1

  19

  6

  30

  16

  45

  118

  Source:

  Eurostat FISHERIES—yearly statistics 1994.

  There is no generally recognised measure of the efficiency of fishing fleets, which depends on a range of variable factors, including the skills of the fishermen involved.

  The question of modernisation is primarily a matter for the commercial judgment of those in the industry. Any use of taxpayers money should concentrate on the need to reduce capacity to bring the fleet into better balance with what stocks will bear.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of fish stocks, by species, which have been discarded dead at sea because of quota restrictions for each year since the advent of the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement; [8363]
  684
  This answer includes all of the agencies with the exception of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which has answered directly.

  Letter from Mr. J. F. FitzGerald to Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, dated 16 January 1996:
  In my Chief Executive's absence, the Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of withdrawing from contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). This is an operational matter for which my Chief Executive is responsible. The VMD has not had any contracts with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones and so has not incurred any costs as a result of withdrawing from such contracts.

  Fishing Fleet
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the age and efficiency of the British fishing fleet; how he proposes to modernise it; what comparative statistics he has in respect of the figures for the(a) Dutch, (b) Spanish and (c) Danish fleets; and if he will make a statement. [8371]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table gives details of the ages of fishing vessels in the UK, Dutch, Spanish and Danish fleets as at the end of 1991, the latest year for which such comparative data are available.

  (2) what proposals he expects to put to his EU counterparts in the next three months for removing the need for fishermen to discard above quota fish at sea; and if he will make a statement. [8392]

  Mr. Baldry
  No such estimates exist within the Ministry but there is a clear need to reduce the number of discards. This will be one of the issues discussed by the fisheries conservation group which I am setting up, and I hope to be able to put proposals to the European Commission in April.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to abolish the quota system for fisheries management and replace it with technical measures to assist conservation; and if he will make a statement. [8394]
  685
  Mr. Baldry
  Quotas and technical conservation measures are both intended to protect fish stocks and to safeguard the future livelihoods of fishermen. The two approaches are complementary and I have no plans to advocate one of them to the exclusion of the other. However, I am setting up a fisheries conservation group to consider whether more can be achieved by technical conservation measures.

HEALTH

  "Nursing in a Multi-ethnic NHS"
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the findings of the Policy Studies Institute report entitled, "Nursing in a Multi-ethnic NHS"; what plans he has to implement its recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [9039]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service is strongly committed to equal opportunities and funds a number of innovative schemes which support the practice as well as the principle of equal opportunity.

  A series of regional conferences has been organised to encourage NHS employers to share good practice and promote positive action for ethnic minority staff as a result of the findings of the Policy Studies Institute report.

  The report showed that ethnic minorities are better represented within the NHS nursing and midwifery work force than in the population as a whole, but nevertheless suggested areas where improvements might be made.

  Appointments (Carers and Disabled People)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to ensure that carers are represented on the health boards and health councils which he is responsible for appointing; and if he will make a statement; [9360]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that disabled people are represented on the health boards and health councils which he is responsible for appointing; and if he will make a statement. [9362]

  Mr. Malone
  People representing all sections and interests of the community are encouraged, through open advertisement, to apply for non-executive appointment to national health service trusts and health authorities and to become members of community health councils. An equal opportunities policy in the selection process is adopted for all appointments.

  Mrs. Daphne Banks
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of the circumstances in which Mrs. Daphne Banks was mistakenly pronounced dead on 5 January 1996. [9323]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for Cambridge and Huntingdon health commission. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Margaret Scott, chairman of the commission, for details.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into(a) the incidence of multiple sclerosis and (b) the incidence of clusters of multiple sclerosis, with particular reference to West Craven. [9692]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government are funding research designed to investigate the causes of multiple sclerosis and the effectiveness of new treatments. My Department has no current proposals for research in the areas suggested. However, the main agency through which the Government supports biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade. The MRC is always willing to consider high quality research proposals.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the procedures for the protection of the interests of (i) the patient, (ii) the general practitioner concerned and (iii) the public in cases where a general practitioner seeks to remove a patient from their NHS list. [9838]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on 18 October 1995,Official Report, column 355.

  Living Wills
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to grant legal status to living wills; and if he will make a statement. [9197]

  Mr. Bowis
  Advance statements—living wills—are already legally binding under common law, if clearly established and applicable in the circumstances.

  The Law Commission, in its report on mental incapacity, made recommendations for legislation in a number of areas including advance statements. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor announced on 16 January that there is to be a public consultation on the proposals in due course.

  We remain wholly opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia.

  Child Care
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance to social services departments on child care following the House of Lords judgment in the H (minors) (child abuse threshold conditions) case. [9930]

  Mr. Bowis
  The implications of the judgment are being considered, but preliminary indications are that existing guidance on good practice is not affected by the judgment.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning annually resulting in deaths and injury are(a) in rented property and (b) in owner-occupied property. [9707]
  687
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistics are not available on the relative numbers of cases of carbon monoxide poisoning in rented property and in owner-occupier property. The risk of CO poisoning owing to faulty heating appliances is equally likely with any heating appliance which is not properly installed or maintained, and there are reported fatalities and injuries in the press of incidents in both types of accommodation.

PRIME MINISTER

  Liverpool Dockworkers (Petition)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent petition presented to 10 Downing street by Liverpool dockworkers' wives. [10250]

  The Prime Minister
  The abolition of the dock labour scheme has enabled United Kingdom ports to take full advantage of the commercial opportunities available to them. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has grasped these opportunities to make the port of Liverpool one of the most successful ports in the country. Supporting this unofficial action would serve only to threaten the growing success of the port of Liverpool.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had since 1 December 1995 with the United States Government about making approaches to Libya, with a view to ending the imposition of sanctions. [8169]

  The Prime Minister
  None, although we remain in close contact with the United States on this issue. Libya knows what it has to do to secure the lifting of sanctions.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons both in the Prime Ministers' Office and in the Cabinet Office employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any connection in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10219]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no officials employed on Scott inquiry related matters on a full-time or part-time basis within the Prime Minister's Office. The direct salary cost of officials within the Cabinet Office wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry from December 1992 to December 1995 is approximately £486,000. Other officials within the Prime Minister's Office and the Cabinet Office are inevitably involved from time to time; their direct salary cost is unquantifiable.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has(a) read or received and (b) authorised civil servants, Ministers or any other persons to collate or receive copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated by Sir Richard Scott to Government Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10221]

  The Prime Minister
  The handling of extracts of Sir Richard Scott's draft report, subject to guidance received from the inquiry, is for those to whom they are sent. The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses.
  688
  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister if(a) staff employed by the Cabinet Office on a part-time or full-time basis and (b) David Gould, during his period of employment in the civil service have read, collated or received copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated to Government Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10220]

  The Prime Minister
  The question of whether Cabinet Office staff should see extracts of Sir Richard Scott's draft report is at the discretion of those to whom the inquiry has sent them.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what assurances were given by his predecessor regarding the financing of the channel tunnel; and what information he has about assurances offered by the French Government. [10116]

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware that any assurances were given by my predecessor or by the French Government. From the start it was always envisaged that the channel tunnel would be an entirely private sector project, and that the concessionaires would have no recourse to Government funds or guarantees of a financial or commercial nature. That remains the position of both Governments.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to publish as a Command Paper the current treaty provisions and inter-institutional agreements governing the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. [9839]

  Mr. David Davis
  A Command Paper containing the current provisions of the European Community treaty and the treaty on European Union is in preparation and will be published shortly.

  Inter-institutional agreements are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the items from endangered species seized by the Hong Kong authorities in each of the last three years. [8764]

  Mr. Hanley
  In the last three years, most of the seizures involved(a) tourists arriving in Hong Kong or residents returning from neighbouring countries bringing stuffed specimens, tonic cuisine, pets and controlled medicines; and (b) local shops offering for sale medicines claimed to contain rhino or tiger ingredients.

  Ceremonial Dress
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the cost of ceremonial dress for Her Majesty's representatives
  689
  abroad in (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 to date; and which countries were involved. [8767]

  Mr. Hanley
  Diplomatic uniform is provided to HM representatives where required by local custom and tradition.

  Expenditure on diplomatic uniform in the years specified was as follows:

  1993–94: £14,775

  1994–95: £8,935

  1995–96: £19,879 to date

  The countries and dependent territories involved were Anguilla, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Japan, Luxembourg, Montserrat, the Netherlands, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand and Turks and Caicos.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items of ceremonial dress are required for Her Majesty's representative at the Holy See; and what are the itemised costs. [9176]

  Mr. Hanley
  Local custom requires HM representatives to the Holy See to wear full diplomatic uniform on frequent occasions.

  At present, HM ambassador to the Holy See is a woman and is not required to wear uniform. Accordingly, current costs for this uniform are not available.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons in his Department employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any connection whatsoever in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10214]

  Mr. Hanley
  The direct salary cost of officials within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry since 1992 is approximately £197,627.00. Other officials will inevitably be involved from time to time; their direct salary cost is unquantifiable.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has(a) read, collated or received and (b) authorised civil servants or any other persons to read, collate or receive copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated by Sir Richard Scott to Government Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10216]

  Mr. Hanley
  The handling of extracts of Sir Richard's draft report, subject to the wishes of the inquiry, is at the discretion of those to whom they are sent. The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide a breakdown of the spending by his Department on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry; and how much has been spent on legal advice and for whom. [10215]

  Mr. Hanley
  The amount so far spent by my Department on external advice in relation to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry is £318,165.46. The names of the individuals and their legal advisers are confidential to them.

  Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an itemised breakdown of the costs relating to the marshal of the diplomatic corps in 1994–95. [8910]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: These costs are shared between the FCO and Buckingham palace. The costs of the marshal, his staff and office borne by the FCO in 1994–95 were:

  £

  Salaries, national insurance contributions

  51,110.00

  Transport, travel and entertainment

  14,148.13

  Office equipment, supplies and sundries

  4,731.22

  Total

  69,989.35

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he intends to issue to(a) departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9220]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled people on Monday 15 January, Official Report, column 417.

  I will ensure that this Department and any bodies for which it is responsible will be made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pre-school Provision
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number and percentage of four-year-olds in(a) maintained nursery schools and nursery classes, (b) reception classes in primary schools, (c) private or voluntary sector provision and (c) pre-school provision overall. [9059]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows the breakdown between schools for four-year-olds born between I January 1990 and 31 August 1990. It excludes both those children who were three years old on 31 August 1994 but who were four years old on 1 January 1995, and those who were four years old on the 31 August 1994 but who were five years old on 1 January 1995—the rising fives.
  691
  A separate estimate of all children who were four years old on 1 January 1995 suggests that at that time 517,000 four-year-olds—78 per cent. of all children aged four—were attending maintained schools. We estimate that approximately 125,000 more—19 per cent. of all children aged four—were in some form of private or voluntary provision.

  Pupils aged four years of age in schools in England: January 1995

  School type

  Pupils

  Percentage of population1

  Maintained nursery

  schools and nursery

  classes

  46,058

  10

  Infant classes in

  primary schools2

  342,395

  78

  Independent schools2

  18,893

  4

  All schools4

  409,451

  93

  1Full-time and part-time pupils aged four years of age at 31 August 1994 excluding pupils of compulsory school age in January 1995—the rising fives—expressed as a percentage of the relevant portion of the population aged four at 31 August 1994.

  2Includes reception and other classes.

  3Incudes pupils in direct grant nursery schools.

  4Includes pupils in maintained nursery, primary and special schools, non-maintained special schools and independent schools.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance she intends to issue to(a) Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which she has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if she will make a statement. [9232]

  Mr. Paice
  A brief guide to the Disability Discrimination Act was issued in November 1995 and further information material on the provisions of the Act will follow. We are currently consulting on a draft code of practice relating to the employment provisions in the Act and statutory guidance related to the definition of disability. Consultation on proposals for regulations under the education, employment and definition provisions of the Act is also currently underway.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be asking the National Disability Council, when it first meets, to produce and consult on a code of practice relating to the rights of access to goods and services. At the same time he will consult on associated regulations. All these items will be published in plenty of time to allow those with duties under the Act to prepare themselves for the introduction of the new rights. I shall ensure that the Department and any bodies for which it is responsible will be made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  School Transport (Disabled Children)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures are in place to ensure that the inaccessibility of school transport is not a restricting factor in integrating disabled children into mainstream schools; and if he will make a statement. [9258]
  692
  Mr. Forth
  Parents of a child with a statement of special educational needs have a right to express a preference for any maintained school, mainstream or special; the local education authority must comply with that preference subject to certain conditions. One of these is that placement at the school would be compatible with the efficient use of resources, which could in some cases include the cost of transport.

  The Government have recently introduced the school access initiative, which should mean that parents of disabled children have a wider choice of accessible mainstream schools. The initiative will help to reduce the need for long home-to-school journeys since one of the key criteria for demonstrating eligibility for funding is the reduction in disabled pupils' travelling times.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sums have been spent, by grade, on staff costs for the jobseeker's allowance project in Lytham St. Annes. [9788]

  Mr. Forth
  The grade of staff undertaking work on the jobseeker's allowance project at Lytham St. Annes has varied depending on the work in hand. It would therefore involve disproportionate costs to provide the detailed information requested.

  Around 110 staff from the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service between the grades of grade 6 to administrative assistant—or agency grade equivalents—have been involved at any one time. The salary costs since October 1994 have been £2,063,871.

  There is also a contract with Information Technology Services Agency for work mainly on the JSA computer system. Staffing levels fluctuate, but about 135 people are involved. It is not possible to give the salary cost of ITSA staff since the departmental information technology/information systems financial regime means that salaries make up only part of the total paid to ITSA and are not identified separately.

  Graduate Unemployment
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the level of graduate unemployment in each of the last five years. [9599]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the level of unemployment amongst newly qualified graduates and among all graduates in the labour force is given in the following table:

  Unemployment rates for newly qualified graduates (Great Britain)

  Year of qualification

  Percentage unemployed six months after graduation

  1990

  8

  1991

  12

  1992

  13

  1993

  12

  1994

  10

  Source:

  Surveys of first destinations of graduates.
  693

  Unemployment rates for all graduates in the labour farce (UK)

  Year

  Percentage unemployed

  1991

  3.7

  1992

  4.4

  1993

  5.0

  1994

  4.3

  1995

  4.2

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Non-teaching Days
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the cost to the Education Service of the five non-teaching days for which teachers are contracted. [9923]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Full-time teachers are employed throughout the year, although their conditions of employment provide that they must be available for work for 195 days in any school year, of which 190 days shall be days on which they may be required to teach pupils. Consequently there is no specific cost associated with the five non-teaching days.

  Expenditure on education and latest pupil numbers

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  (D)

  Pupil numbers

  Education standard spending assessment

  Education budget

  Delegated schools budget

  LEAs

  (January 1995)

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 (provisional) £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Corporation of London

  212

  0.8

  0.8

  2.9

  0.7

  Camden

  19,546

  78.8

  78.3

  79.4

  47.1

  Greenwich

  35,025

  114.3

  113.9

  112

  81.9

  Hackney

  25,184

  92.8

  92.1

  101

  56

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  14,655

  57.2

  56

  62.5

  34.9

  Islington

  23,675

  80.4

  81.1

  82.7

  56.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  8,603

  37.3

  34.2

  45.8

  23.8

  Lambeth

  19,839

  102.1

  100.8

  105.9

  50.4

  Lewisham

  31,225

  108

  109

  109.6

  69.8

  Southwark

  27,686

  109.9

  108.8

  109.1

  60.6

  Tower Hamlets

  34,046

  120.2

  122.8

  125.7

  77.4

  Wandsworth

  19,683

  88.7

  86.3

  91.4

  46.8

  City of Westminster

  17,013

  59.9

  58.1

  68.9

  40.5

  Barking

  26,354

  65.7

  69.9

  72.3

  52.4

  Barnet

  32,349

  113.7

  116.7

  120.5

  64

  Bexley

  30,891

  84.5

  88.7

  80

  52.6

  Brent

  22,949

  106.3

  109

  95.5

  42.9

  Bromley

  27,055

  99.6

  103.8

  108.1

  42.7

  Croydon

  34,374

  114.3

  118.4

  119.6

  66.6

  Ealing

  31,653

  108.9

  112.2

  109.2

  61.9

  Enfield

  36,459

  112.2

  117.8

  113.2

  68.6

  Haringey

  29,737

  89.1

  93.4

  96.9

  63.5

  Harrow

  27,152

  70.4

  73

  76.8

  55.7

  Havering

  31,355

  84.1

  87.2

  85.8

  58.4

  Hillingdon

  19,190

  88.9

  93.8

  87.2

  37.4

  Hounslow

  31,752

  90.2

  94.8

  89.4

  63.2

  Kingston upon Thames

  15,360

  45.9

  47.1

  47.3

  28.1

  Merton

  21,398

  56.3

  58.1

  56.4

  41.9

  Newham

  40,598

  123.8

  130.4

  115.2

  74.9

  Redbridge

  34,137

  94.2

  98.3

  95.8

  67.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  18,427

  44.3

  45.9

  48

  37.6

  Sutton

  17,388

  64.5

  67.8

  65.4

  32.5

  Waltham Forest

  29,695

  94.1

  97.4

  94.4

  62.3

  Birmingham

  158,041

  427.2

  448.7

  456.4

  301.7

  Coventry

  49,334

  115.7

  119.9

  130.3

  94.5

  Dudley

  42,496

  98.9

  104.2

  107.6

  71.5

  Sandwell

  48,668

  113.8

  118.1

  120.7

  85.1

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is for each local education authority in England the total(a) number of pupils, (b) education standard spending assessment for 1995–96 and 1996–97, (c) education budget set for 1995–96 and (d) delegated schools budget for 1995–96. [8688]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows for each local education authority(a) the latest available full-time equivalent pupil numbers in LEA-maintained schools; (b) standard spending assessment allocations for 1995–96 and provisionally for 1996–97; (c) education budget set for 1995–96; and (d) the delegated schools budget for 1995–96. Pupil numbers in column (A) and delegated schools budgets in column (D) exclude pupils and funding for the grant-maintained sector, but standard spending assessments in column (B) and education budget in column (C) include provision for grant-maintained schools which are funded by recoupment from the relevant LEA.
  695

  Expenditure on education and latest pupil numbers

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  (D)

  Pupil numbers

  Education standard spending assessment

  Education budget

  Delegated schools budget

  LEAs

  (January 1995)

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 (provisional) £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Solihull

  33,499

  69.2

  73.1

  76.6

  61.2

  Walsall

  39,829

  103.7

  108.6

  108

  67.1

  Wolverhampton

  38,926

  96.1

  99.9

  101.6

  68.3

  Knowsley

  27,929

  69.6

  73.1

  70.3

  50.7

  Liverpool

  77,629

  202.7

  209.3

  200.7

  139.5

  St. Helens

  29,284

  63.3

  66.6

  73.2

  52.1

  Sefton

  46,673

  102.3

  106.9

  110

  81.6

  Wirral

  51,099

  124.1

  132.3

  123.8

  89.4

  Bolton

  41,762

  95.7

  100.9

  101.9

  70.0

  Bury

  27,793

  57.8

  61.6

  65.2

  47.7

  Manchester

  69,828

  182.5

  188.3

  174

  129.3

  Oldham

  41,373

  90.3

  94.8

  96.6

  73.3

  Rochdale

  31,691

  79.7

  82.8

  80.1

  51.8

  Salford

  36,071

  78.7

  82.5

  85.8

  62.8

  Stockport

  42,537

  86.1

  89.8

  95.4

  73.4

  Tameside

  34,462

  76.3

  80.6

  84.2

  53.6

  Trafford

  29,452

  72.5

  76.8

  78.9

  46.8

  Wigan

  49,912

  104.9

  110.2

  113.2

  92.0

  Barnsley

  33,528

  73.1

  76.9

  73.5

  52.8

  Doncaster

  50,796

  113.7

  119.7

  115.3

  88.9

  Rotherham

  43,428

  96.3

  102.5

  97.1

  74.3

  Sheffield

  68,029

  162.8

  171.0

  172.4

  112.7

  Bradford

  79,325

  201.9

  209.9

  196.1

  133.8

  Calderdale

  24,427

  72.8

  77.2

  75.4

  39.4

  Kirklees

  61,082

  136.7

  141.6

  147

  101.1

  Leeds

  110,256

  240.4

  252.6

  282.5

  198.1

  Wakefield

  50,576

  106.4

  111.6

  112.4

  83.3

  Gateshead

  29,859

  68.2

  70.9

  75.9

  53.5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  40,348

  97.3

  99.7

  101.4

  71.9

  North Tyneside

  30,569

  65.4

  68.8

  69

  52.5

  South Tyneside

  25,697

  56.3

  59.0

  59.9

  41.5

  Sunderland

  49,699

  110.9

  114.9

  114

  86.8

  Isles of Scilly

  283

  1.2

  1.2

  1.3

  0.8

  Avon

  136,628

  298

  n/a

  338.8

  249.7

  Bedfordshire

  79,193

  212

  220.2

  209.8

  135.7

  Berkshire

  100,175

  273.3

  282.3

  270.4

  174.8

  Buckinghamshire

  88,106

  244.5

  247.6

  245.9

  149.9

  Cambridgeshire

  84,413

  226.1

  237.3

  243.6

  139.2

  Cheshire

  151,947

  219

  349.1

  222

  261.9

  Cleveland

  99,191

  332

  n/a

  355

  167.8

  Cornwall

  69,254

  156.2

  164.9

  153.6

  116.4

  Cumbria

  59,985

  161.5

  170.9

  172.8

  99.8

  Derbyshire

  123,012

  302.8

  320.0

  322.9

  195.2

  Devon

  138,352

  328.4

  345.8

  330.3

  235.5

  Dorset

  77,399

  198

  207.5

  213.5

  124.3

  Durham

  94,876

  206.9

  216.7

  220.2

  154.2

  East Sussex

  88,056

  212.5

  219.8

  221.3

  163.9

  Essex

  137,154

  540.5

  566.7

  548.6

  241.1

  Gloucesteshire

  51,420

  174.5

  183.8

  175.4

  80.0

  Hampshire

  200,172

  502.6

  525.3

  545.6

  362.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  95,640

  219.8

  228.9

  217.7

  157.3

  Hertfordshire

  129,636

  371.4

  387.3

  380

  244.6

  Humberside

  141,168

  310.8

  n/a

  340.6

  248.3

  Isle of Wight

  18,104

  43.6

  45.2

  44.2

  31.9

  Kent

  175,151

  559.1

  581.8

  555.5

  298.7

  Lancashire

  213,307

  484

  510.6

  520.5

  344.4

  Leicestershire

  138,244

  316.4

  333.3

  328

  237.4

  Lincolnshire

  64,949

  199.2

  213.1

  221

  114.3

  Norfolk

  92,797

  234.8

  243.4

  255.5

  162.3

  North Yorkshire

  105,026

  223.6

  185.9

  243.9

  185.9

  Northamptonshire

  84,884

  209.8

  222.3

  216.8

  145.0

  Northumberland

  49,842

  107.6

  113.6

  114.5

  84.7

  Nottinghamshire

  152,190

  346.7

  365.2

  373.5

  263.7

  Oxfordshire

  78,725

  186.6

  192.6

  186.7

  138.0

  Shropshire

  56,657

  137.1

  145.4

  146.6

  93.9

  Somerset

  65,039

  143.5

  150.9

  158.6

  112.7

  Staffordshire

  162,669

  348.8

  366.1

  361.1

  259.0

  Suffolk

  93.659

  205.9

  217.5

  219.7

  168.3

  Surrey

  103,483

  299.4

  307.6

  306.8

  187.7

  696 697

  Expenditure on education and latest pupil numbers

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  (D)

  Pupil numbers

  Education standard spending assessment

  Education budget

  Delegated schools budget

  LEAs

  (January 1995)

  1995–96 £ million

  1996–97 (provisional) £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  1995–96 £ million

  Warwickshire

  68,292

  156.2

  164.1

  164.6

  113.5

  West Sussex

  96,023

  226.8

  235.5

  242.3

  176

  Wiltshire

  67,163

  188.6

  197.6

  201

  110.9

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  —

  54.4

  —

  —

  Bristol

  —

  —

  120

  —

  —

  North Somerset

  —

  —

  58.6

  —

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  78.6

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  37

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  61.5

  —

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  —

  59.6

  —

  —

  Stockton on Tees

  —

  —

  71.8

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Hull

  —

  —

  102.7

  —

  —

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  103

  —

  —

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  64.9

  —

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  56.4

  —

  —

  York

  —

  —

  52.8

  —

  —

  Total

  6,612,808

  17024.4

  17758.9

  17821.4

  11705.9

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average cost to a local education authority of employing one teacher in London for one year. [9460]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimated average annual cost to a local education authority of employing a full-time classroom teacher in London, as at 31 March 1994, was around £24,800. This is based on the average salary for classroom teachers in LEA-maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in the Greater London area on 31 March 1994 of around £21,500 and "on costs" at 15.55 per cent. in respect of employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions. Later figures are not yet available.

  Employment Service Dispute
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the dispute within the Employment Service which began on 30 November 1995; and what action she plans to take to negotiate a settlement. [9911]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 17 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the current trade dispute within the Employment Service; responsibility for pay bargaining was delegated to the Agency in January 1994.
  The Agency is in dispute with the Civil and Public Services Association (CPSA) over the 1995/96 pay award to those of our employees in grades represented by that union. These ES people have been paid increases, with effect from April 1995, of between
  698
  2.8% and 5.5%, depending upon their individual performance in the year ending March 1995. The majority of them received pay rises of more than 3.7%.
  These pay awards were in addition to a 2.3% increase, also paid in April, for this group of employees as a consequence of CPSA agreement to a new pay structure for the grades in question.
  Whilst we regret the decision taken by the CPSA to call for industrial action amongst some of its members working in the Agency, we have been clear from the outset that the pay award for 1995/96 will not be improved. The pay award is fair, and is set at a level that is all the Agncy can afford.
  We have made very real efforts to reach a settlement with the CPSA, both before the dispute started and since. This included my agreement that talks should take place under the auspices of ACAS. Those talks were called off when the CPSA decided not to adhere to the agreement we had reached that it would order its striking members back to work before the talks started.
  The Employment Service remains committed to finding an early resolution to the idspute to enable us to resume our normal level of service to the job seekers who use the 47 offices currently affected by strike action. Communication channels with the union, therefore, remain open. But that does not mean we are in a position to improve upon a pay award which is both competitive and at the limits of what we can afford.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the(a) categories and (b) names of (i) statutory bodies, (ii) voluntary organisations or (iii) commercial contractors she has chosen, or is considering, to administer the production, distribution, and use of vouchers for financing (1) nursery education, (2) some infants in reception classes of primary schools and (3) an associated system of registration. [9964]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Capita Managed Services Ltd. will administer the issue and redemption of nursery education vouchers in phase 1. Parents will be able to exchange their vouchers in maintained, private and voluntary providers participating in the scheme. It is proposed that Ofsted will inspect registered providers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is his estimate of the total cost for himself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers; [6404]

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  President's office

  565,000

  735,000

  874,000

  883,000

  829,000

  Total cost of ministerial organisation

  1,840,000

  2,354,000

  3,225,000

  3,849,000

  3,898,000

  1Costs based on current estimates.

  Expenditure is not classified under all the headings specified and figures could be calculated only at disproportionate cost. Equivalent headings are shown as follows. Office refurbishment and press office are not disaggregated to the ministerial organisation: these are costed centrally.

  Estimated costs for 1995–96—ministerial organisation, including parliamentary branch and the office of the permanent secretary

  Total cost of ministerial organisation

  President's Office

  Total running costs

  3,898,000

  829,000

  Travel and subsistence (including ministerial car service, domestic and foreign travel)

  875,000

  149,000

  Entertainment (includes alcoholic/non-alcoholic drinks)

  52,000

  10,000

  Stationery

  85,000

  19,000

  Staff costs (includes ministerial salaries)

  2,377,000

  582,000

  Other

  509,000

  69,000

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cubic metres of Brazilian mahogany were imported into the United Kingdom in 1995 from Brazil. [8538]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are no official sources on imports of Brazilian mahogany into the United Kingdom. The information has not been available since 1992, when the United Kingdom trade classification no longer separately identified mahogany from other non-coniferous woods.

  China
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest available figures for the balance of trade with China. [9028]
  700
  (2) what is his estimate of the cost of running his departmental office, and that of his predecessor, for each year since 1990–91 including the current year, broken down into (a) telephone bills, (b) total staff costs, (c) press and communications, (d) entertainment, (e) alcoholic drinks, (f) non-alcoholic drinks, (g) stationery, (h) office refurbishment and (i) other. [6403]

  Mr. Lang
  The total running cost of the DTI ministerial organisation, including Ministers' offices, parliamentary branch and the office of the permanent secretary, is as follows. Figures for the office of the President of the Board of Trade are also shown.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In the 12 months ended November 1995, UK exports to China were worth £0.8 billion while imports were worth £1.9 billion, resulting in a crude trade deficit of £1.1 billion.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices there were(a) in 1990 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [9112]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of Crown post offices in the United Kingdom as at 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1995 are as indicated in the table. The number of main post offices, which offer customers the full range of post office services, are also indicated.

  Main Post offices crown and agency offices

  Crown post offices

  1 April 1990

  1,492

  1,339

  31 December 1995

  1,518

  677

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing unit values for United Kingdom exports and imports of manufactures for each quarter since 1990, based on 1985=100. [9781]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information based on 1985=100 is not available. Information based on 1990=100 is published by the Central Statistical Office in the monthly review of external trade statistics, which is available in the Library of the House. It is also available on the central shared database, which may be accessed from the Library.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table, based on 1985=100, showing the volume of manufacturing output less fuel, food, drink and tobacco for each year since 1970. [9780]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information based on 1985=100 is not available. Information based on the standard industrial classification 1992 and 1990=100 is available from 1986 and is given in the table.

  Index of production for manufacturing less fuel1 food, drink and tobacco

  Year

  1986

  83.7

  1987

  88.3

  1988

  95.4

  1989

  100.4

  1990

  100.0

  1991

  93.4

  1992

  92.4

  1993

  93.7

  1994

  98.2

  1For fuel the standard industrial classification 1992 subsection DF has been used.

  Trade (United States)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the likely effect on the United Kingdom balance of visible trade with the United States resulting from measures taken to eliminate the United States visible deficit. [9795]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Any estimate of the likely effect on the UK balance of visible trade with the US resulting from as yet unspecified measures to eliminate the US visibles deficit is complex and dependant on a number of factors including movements in exchange rates, levels of demand in the two countries and price and income elasticities. Assessing the interaction of these and/or other factors could not be reliably undertaken except at disproportionate cost.

  Competitions (Telephone Premium Rates)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make the running of pseudo-competitions using telephone premium rate lines illegal. [9899]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Premium rate telephone services are regulated by the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, ICSTIS. The ICSTIS code of practice contains a number of detailed regulations regarding these competitions and their promotion. In the light of current concerns, ICSTIS has instigated a review of competitions; the findings are expected by the end of March 1996. In the event of breaches of its code, ICSTIS has a number of sanctions—including fines and barring service providers from providing premium rate services—which are regularly invoked. I understand that a copy of the current ICSTIS code is already available in the Library of the House.

  Brewing Industry
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the review by the European Commission of the block exemption of British brewers with regard to the tied house system; what steps are being taken to safeguard the interests of brewers and licensees; what assessment he has made of level of support in the European Union for the proposal to continue the exemption after 1997; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to secure alternative provision for British brewers. [9924]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The block exemption which deals with the tie between brewer and landlord will first be considered as part of a wider debate on the treatment of distribution agreements under EC competition law. The Commission will publish a green paper on this issue later this year. Consideration of specific types of agreement such as the tie will follow on from the green paper, at which time my Department will consider the specific interests of the UK's brewing industry.

  Whatever the outcome of the wider review, my Department will oppose any changes to the block exemption dealing with the tie which would result in the UK's brewers finding themselves in an unfair position compared with brewers in other member states.

  Industrial Death and Retirement Scheme
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will distinguish, in each year since 1990, the amount of interest earned by payments into the industrial death and retirement fund by members and interest earned by the whole fund; [10092]

  (2) what was the difference between the sum paid out as benefit from the industrial death and retirement fund in the 12 months up to its closure and the amount earned in interest by the fund in the period between 7 June 1995 and 21 October 1995; [10090]

  (3) if the industrial death and retirement fund will he accepting new claims for industrial injury or disablement arising before 1 June; [10093]

  (4) if actuarial reports on the industrial death and retirement fund reported on the level of contributions paid in and the amount of benefit paid out from the fund. [10091]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the winding-up of the industrial death and retirement fund by British Coal; and if he will make a statement. [8686]

  Mr. Page
  The industrial death and retirement scheme—there was no fund as such—was closed by British Coal on 6 January 1995 with the agreement of the Department, due notice having been given to the trades unions involved. All representations received since then have been referred to British Coal.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what legal costs, arising from the Scott inquiry, have been incurred by the Department on behalf of current and past(a) civil servants and (b) advisers and secondees; [8747]

  (2) what legal costs, arising from the Scott inquiry, have been incurred by his Department on behalf of Ministers and ex-Ministers; and if he will name the individuals concerned. [8754]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: The value of legal services charged by the Treasury Solicitor's Department, with accounts settled to date from public funds for the provision of external legal services incurred on behalf of Ministers, ex-Ministers and civil servants of my Department in connection with the Scott inquiry is £293,870. No legal costs have been incurred on behalf of other advisors or secondees. The cost of any advice in connection with the Scott inquiry given by Government's lawyers as part of their normal duties cannot be quantified. It is not the Government's policy to identify the individuals who have received legal advice, either directly or indirectly.

  Trade Figures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the European countries with which the United Kingdom has(a) a trade surplus and (b) a deficit between the second quarter of 1979 and the present day. [7023]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 December 1995]: The most recent figures for visible trade show that, between the second quarter of 1979 and the third quarter of 1995, the UK had a crude trade surplus with the Irish Republic, Spain and Greece and a crude trade deficit with Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium/Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Portugal, Norway and Switzerland. The smaller western European countries and those of eastern Europe have been excluded because to provide the relevant figures for them would involve disproportionate cost.

  Information on UK trade in invisibles prior to 1988 is not available for individual countries. Between 1988 and 1994, the UK has had an invisible surplus with Denmark, the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland and a deficit with the other countries of the EC and the European Free Trade Association.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will provide a breakdown of the spending by his Department on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry; and how much has been spent on legal advice and for whom. [10229]

  The Attorney-General
  The amount so far spent for the legal secretariat to the Law Officers and Treasury Solicitor's Department on external advice in relation to 704
  Sir Richard Scott's inquiry is £34,463. The names of the individuals and their legal advisers are confidential to them.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons in his Department employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any connection in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10228]

  The Attorney-General
  A number of staff in my Departments work on matters related to the Scott inquiry from time to time as part of their duties and it is not possible to estimate the overall cost.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has(a) read, collated or received and (b) authorised civil servants or any other persons to read, collate or receive copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated by Sir Richard Scott to Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10230]

  The Attorney-General
  The handling of extracts of Sir Richard's draft report, subject to guidance received from the inquiry, is for those to whom they are sent. The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses.

  Jane Dixon
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total cost to public funds of the legal proceedings recently taken against Jane Dixon at Plymouth Crown court. [10172]

  The Solicitor-General
  Legal proceedings against Jane Tucker involved a number of hearings on separate occasions in the magistrates court and the Crown court. The first trial in the Crown court had to be abandoned after three days when jurors were discharged. The retrial was held over four days.

  The cost to the Crown Prosecution Service in instructing counsel to appear in the Crown court was £3,388.99 and I understand that the approximate cost to the Court Service of a day's hearing in the Crown court, including judge time, is £2,040. However, in assessing the total cost to public funds of all the proceedings it is also necessary to take account of (1) the cost of proceedings in the magistrates court and the administrative prosecution costs involved in processing the case, which are not available; and (2) defence costs, which I understand have not yet been submitted for taxation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the increase in violent crime since 1979(a) in London and (b) in the United Kingdom. [7861]

  Mr. Howard
  Since 1979, there has been an increase of 203 per cent. in the Metropolitan police district, compared with 138 per cent. in England and Wales; for the City of London police force area, recorded violent crime fell by 33 per cent. Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.
  705
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the rate of crimes of violence against the person since 1979 in(a) London and (b) England and Wales. [7869]

  Mr. Howard
  Since 1979, there has been an increase of 168 per cent. in the rate of crimes of violence against the person in the Metropolitan police district compared with 128 per cent. in England and Wales. But in the City of London police area, recorded crimes of violence against the person fell by 29 per cent. over the same period. The category of crime about which the hon. Gentleman has asked is different from the category in the question from his hon. Friend, the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) which I have just answered.

  Security (Lichfield)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit Lichfield to review city centre security; and if he will make a statement. [7862]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to visit Lichfield. As my hon. Friend will know, however, Lichfield was a successful bidder in last year's closed circuit television challenge competition, receiving a grant of more than £93,000. I understand that the CCTV system is due on-line in the spring. I am sure that this will provide an enhanced level of security in the city centre.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Ministers visited the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in 1995; and what subjects were discussed. [7863]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blatch visited the Channel Islands on 18–21 April 1995. She discussed a wide range of issues, including the islands' relationship with the European Union and fisheries.

  Boot Camps
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the establishment of boot camps in the United Kingdom. [7864]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Twenty-four written or oral representations have been made by hon. Members. In addition, 113 letters are recorded as having been received from individuals and organisations expressing views both for and against the introduction of boot camps.

  Obscenity and Pornography
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further measures he is taking to combat obscenity and pornography. [7866]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government will continue to monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of our controls on obscene and pornographic material. To this end, the interdepartmental group on obscenity is currently looking at the dissemination of, and ways of controlling access to, pornography on computer networks.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on current policy regarding wheel clamping on private land; and what proposals he has in this regard. [7867]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government believe that wheelclamping can be a sensible and effective means of controlling parking on private land if it is carried out responsibly, taking proper account of the legitimate rights and interests of motorists. In other circumstances it can given rise to problems.

  The Government are considering what action, if any, should be taken to deal with these problems.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the size of the Metropolitan police service and the resources available to it. [7868]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government are making available £1.65 billion to the Metropolitan police in 1996–97—£20.5 million more than last year. In addition, the 2 per cent. ceiling on the amount the Metropolitan police can carry forward from one year to the next has been removed. This is likely to be worth an extra £25 million on top of the existing maximum of £34 million. I have not yet received the Commissioner's detailed expenditure proposals for 1996–97, but I expect to see even more officers deployed on the streets of London during 1996–97.

  Crime (Women's Fears)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of the fear of crime among women. [7870]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are 11 publications on this subject and I have arranged for a list of these, together with copies of the actual studies to be lodged in the House of Commons Library.

  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to combat the fear of crime among women. [7874]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aware that women are generally more fearful of becoming victimes of crime, and for that reason women can be seen as the primary interest group in our crime prevention activities.

  The best way to tackle fear of crime is to tackle crime itself. We continue to pursue a comprehensive strategy to combat crime, through the second phase of the partnership campaign which was launched this month; through the provision of practical advice on measures which people can take to help keep themselves safe; and through the use of technology, such as closed circuit television. The Home Secretary recently announced a new competition which will inject another £15 million into CCTV schemes up and down the country.

  We are also aware of the need to tackle domestic violence; and we have established inter-departmental groups at official and ministerial level to promote a

  707
  co-ordinated response to the problem at a national and local level. And the recent public awareness campaign placed the issue firmly on the public agenda.

  Last year the Government published an interagency circular on domestic violence which set out the Government's approach to the issue and encouraged a more co-ordinated response to the problem by local agencies.

  Police Station Closures
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the numbers of police station closures and downgradings since 1987; and if he will make a statement. [7872]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Holloway Prison
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of conditions at(a) Holloway prison and (b) other prisons at which women prisoners are being held. [7873]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The current conditions at Holloway have been brought to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. He expressed grave concern over a restricted regime, poor hygiene and cleanliness, poor standards of health care, low staff morale and the general management of the establishment.

  I have asked the temporary Director General of the Prison Service to add to steps already taken before the chief inspector's visit to bring the establishment up to an acceptable operational standard.

  Livestock Rustling
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had about the incidence of livestock rustling; and how many such offences have been reported to the police in recent years. [9714]

  Mr. Maclean
  One hon. Friend has written, and one hon. Member has asked a previous question about the theft of livestock.

  Statistics on the theft of livestock are not held centrally.

  Anti-crime Measures
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contribution to combating crime arising from the introduction of(a) the national DNA database and (b) closed circuit television; and what plans he has to expand the scope of each. [9690]

  Mr. Maclean
  The national DNA database was launched in April 1995. On 17 January 1996, the database held over 23,000 DNA profiles and 284 matches had been made between suspects and scenes of crime, or between one scene of crime and another. Of these matches, 15 were across police force boundaries.
  708
  The Government welcome the developing use of closed circuit television in the fight against crime. The experience of CCTV operators and the police is that CCTV can make a significant contribution to the prevention and detection of crime and to reduction of the fear of crime.

  In order to help further expand the use of CCTV, my right hon. and learned Friend recently announced that £15 million had been made available for another CCTV challenge competition. Our aim is to place 10,000 more CCTV cameras on the streets of Britain over the next three years.

  Parish Special Constables
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parish special constables are now in place, and in which counties or police areas; how many he expects to be in place by 30 June 1996; and if he will make a statement. [9710]

  Mr. Maclean
  The parish special constable initiative has been extended to include urban areas and the volunteers involved are now known nationally as neighbourhood special constables. Neighbourhood special constables spend the majority of their time on duty on foot patrol either alone or as part of a policing team within an agreed neighbourhood or geographic area more limited than that in which other special constabulary colleagues are deployed. According to police force returns 1,595 special constables in England and Wales are neighbourhood specials. A breakdown of the numbers by police force areas is recorded in the table.

  It is for chief officers to recruit or designate volunteers as neighbourhood special constables, and a forecast for 30 June 1996 cannot be provided. Our initial target for forces of 1,000 neighbourhood special constables by the end of 1995 has been met and we believe that the target of 3,000 by the end of 1996 will also be achieved.

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  0

  Bedfordshire

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  Cheshire

  7

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  0

  Cumbria

  0

  Derbyshire

  40

  Devon and Cornwall

  0

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  10

  Dyfed/Powys

  217

  Essex

  9

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Greater Manchester

  0

  Gwent

  9

  Hampshire

  262

  Hertfordshire

  82

  Humberside

  0

  Kent

  81

  Lancashire

  1

  Leicestershire

  26

  Lincolnshire

  47

  Merseyside

  0

  709

  Number

  Metropolitan

  143

  Norfolk

  324

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumbria

  5

  North Wales

  0

  North Yorkshire

  6

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  South Wales

  1

  South Yorkshire

  8

  Staffordshire

  0

  Suffolk

  18

  Surrey

  7

  Sussex

  1

  Thames Valley

  7

  Warwickshire

  106

  West Mercia

  148

  West Midlands

  7

  West Yorkshire

  9

  Wiltshire

  4

  Total

  1,595

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what difficulties(a) he has experienced or (b) have been reported to him, regarding the development of a network of parish special constables; and if he will make a statement. [9711]

  Mr. Maclean
  Last September, the Home Office published the results of research into the parish constables initiative, with particular attention given to four schemes at Ironville, Derbyshire; Pembury in Kent; Sleights in North Yorkshire; and Yetminster in Dorset. A copy of the report entitled "The Parish Special Constables Scheme" has been placed in the Library. This was a close look at the initiative in its early days and the study identified a number of important issues; such as the importance of selecting the right person for the job, consultation with local people, and good links with the regular police.

  When the initiative was subsumed by that of the neighbourhood special constable in autumn 1994, a proportion of the public mistakenly believed that neighbourhood constables were to be regular officers. This has been addressed by the inclusion of "special" in their title and recent advertising. In addition, some police forces have been slow to identify any of their specials as neighbourhood special constables even though they may perform the neighbourhood special role. This has caused some difficulty in recording accurately the number of specials who undertake neighbourhood specials' duties.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on any proposed meeting with Internet service providers to discuss current laws and regulations concerning the use of the Internet. [9680]

  Mr. Sackville
  The interdepartmental group on obscenity is currently considering the issue of pornographic material disseminated via computer networks, such as the Internet, and it has arranged a meeting with the Internet service providers in the United Kingdom to discuss the possible measures which can be taken to control access to such material.
  710
  The general issue of regulation of the Internet and other computer networks is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Police Houses
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police houses have been sold since 1990; what is his estimate of(a) the number and (b) the proportion of these sales in rural areas and villages; and if he will make a statement on future plans and expected trends in sales; [9712]

  (2) what representations he has had about the sale of police houses in rural areas and the consequences of such sales for the number of resident police constables; and if he will make a statement. [9713]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information about sales over the period specified is not readily available. Figures published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy indicate that the number of police houses in England and Wales fell by 3,282 between 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1995. Estimates of numbers and proportions of sales in rural areas and villages could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by making inquiries of each police force. We will continue to encourage the police to dispose of surplus housing in the interests of efficiency and value for money, but these are budgetary and operational matters for local decision.

  We receive from time to time representations, most recently from my hon. Friend, about the operational implications of the sale of police houses in rural areas. The deployment of officers within forces is a matter for chief constables but the most effective use of resources within a particular area can often be achieved by deploying officers from a central command point.

  Police Response Times
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) recommendations and (b) requirements exist for police response times in rural areas; and what percentage of calls do not meet these response times. [9715]

  Mr. Maclean
  One of the Audit Commission's citizens charter police performance indicators requires the setting of target times for incidents which require an immediate response. The setting of these targets is a local matter, and some forces choose to set separate targets for rural areas. The latest targets, and performance against them, are published in the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary 1994–95, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Car Dealers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans she has to increase the penalties for car dealers who repeatedly sell cars in a dangerous condition. [9867]
  711
  Mr. Maclean
  The maximum penalty for an offence of selling or offering to sell an unroadworthy vehicle is a fine of £5,000. We have no plans to increase this penalty at present.

  Libya (Extradition)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to initiate an extradition treaty with Libya. [8168]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Government have no plans to do so.

  Football Clubs (Arrests)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made inside London Premiership and Football League clubs in each of the last three complete seasons and season 1995–96 to date. [8915]

  Mr. Maclean
  According to records held by the National Criminal Intelligence Service football unit, the numbers of arrests inside London Premiership and League clubs in the relevant seasons are as follows:

  1992–93: 245

  1993–94: 244

  1994–95: 334

  1995–96: 155 (to date).

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has(a) read or received and (b) authorised civil servants or any other persons to collate or receive copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated by Sir Richard Scott to Government Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10209]

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons in his Department employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any connection in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10210]

  Mr. Howard
  There are no officials in my Department wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry. Some officials are involved on an occasional basis as part of their normal duties; the direct salary cost is unquantifiable.

  Thames Valley Police
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the budget set by the Thames Valley police both in cash and in real terms, and the number of police officers and civilians employed by the Thames Valley police in each of the last 16 years. [9293]
  712
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The
  information requested is in the tables:

  Year

  Number of police officers employed by Thames Valley police

  Number of civilians employed by Thames Valley police

  31 March 1980

  2.802

  984

  31 March 1981

  3,093

  1,016

  31 March 1982

  3,098

  1,023

  31 March 1983

  3,123

  1,054

  31 March 1984

  3,176

  1,083

  31 March 1985

  3,259

  1,104

  31 March 1986

  3,297

  1,188

  31 March 1987

  3,421

  1,161

  31 March 1988

  3,490

  1,182

  31 March 1989

  3,600

  1,187

  31 March 1990

  3,659

  1,267

  31 March 1991

  3,714

  1,359

  31 March 1992

  3,772

  1,423

  31 March 1993

  3,840

  1,478

  31 March 1994

  3,908

  1,522

  31 March 1995

  3,854

  1,706

  £million

  Year

  Thames Valley police budget in cash terms1

  Thames Valley police budget in real terms2

  1980–81

  40.06

  84.60

  1981–82

  48.50

  93.40

  1982–83

  55.33

  99.47

  1983–84

  60.58

  104.08

  1984–85

  66.83

  109.32

  1985–86

  72.43

  112.32

  1986–87

  82.15

  123.66

  1987–88

  91.72

  131.09

  1988–89

  100.69

  134.89

  1989–90

  112.56

  140.95

  1990–91

  131.16

  152.05

  1991–92

  147.14

  160.55

  1992–93

  161.54

  169.37

  1993–94

  180.96

  184.35

  1994–95

  3189.68

  189.68

  1995–96

  194.41

  189.21

  1996–97

  4203.70

  192.94

  1Original budgets voted by the police authority (this information has been provided by the Thames Valley Police Authority). Until 1993–94 the authority's original budgets were prepared at a November price base (i.e. November 1992 for the 1993–94 estimates). From 1994–95 onwards the authority's original budgets were produced at outturn prices.

  2Calculated at 1994–95 prices using Treasury GDP deflators.

  3Notional budget used for capping purposes in the first year of the new funding arrangements (1995–96).

  4Proposed total spending power available to Thames Valley Police Authority for 1996–97.

  Charges by Bailiffs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what regulations apply on the levying of charges by bailiffs against individuals from whom they are charged to collect fines. [9113]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have been asked to reply. Where a magistrates' court seeks to enforce payment of a fine by issuing a distress warrant and directing it to a bailiff, the levying of charges by the bailiff for the execution of the distress warrant is governed by section 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, as amended by section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, and by rule 54 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5856]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information available is as follows:

  1991–92: £367,0001

  1992–93: £420,0001

  1993–94: £1,406,000

  1994–95: £1,543,0001

  1995–96: £653,000 to date.

  1Includes purchase of new vehicles.

  The 1991–92 and 1992–93 figures are not available for cars used by the Northern Ireland Office, London or for the Northern Ireland Office, Belfast contract cars.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the total cost for herself and other departmental Ministers for each year since 1991–92, including the current year of(a) overseas travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers and their advisers, (b) car and chauffeuring costs of Ministers, (c) ministerial security costs and (d) domestic travel and accommodation expenses of Ministers. [6390]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information could be supplied in the format requested only at disproportionate cost. However, the overall cost of ministerial travel including the cost of escort cars and of ministerial support staff is as follows.

  1991–92: £1,340,000

  1992–93: £1,315,000

  1993–94: £1,363,0001

  1994–95: £1,460,0001

  1995–96: £1,432,0001

  1Figures for 1993–94—1995–96 include accommodation costs for the Secretary of State in London.

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to reduce funding for ACE projects; what is the estimated saving to public funds; if there is still recruitment to ACE schemes; how the proposals will be implemented; what representations on ACE funding he has received in the past two months; and if he will make a statement. [8972]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for this subject has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 16 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme.
  As you know, on Monday 11 December 1995 the Secretary of State announced details of the Public Expenditure Plans for Northern Ireland for 1996/97 and the following two years. The announcement referred to the very encouraging performance of the Northern
  714
  Ireland economy with unemployment now at its lowest level for 14 years and employment at record levels. He mentioned also the promise of substantial jobs from recently announced investments by major companies.
  Against that background the Secretary of State indicated a reduction in the funding for the ACE programme (which amounts to £12.5 million in 1996/97) to meet pressures in top priority programmes aimed at promoting self-sustaining economic growth. The targeting of available resources in this way will best meet the needs of the unemployed in the longer term.
  This Agency has recently written to the Chairpersons of ACE schemes to indicate the level of reduction required in each scheme to ensure that the programme operates within the resources available to it in 1996/97. Following consultations with a variety of sponsors and others with an interest in ACE, the Agency has agreed to allow ACE sponsors to determine how best they might achieve the reduction either individually or collectively. The Agency has also lifted the freeze on further recruitment into the programme which was imposed temporarily to facilitate an orderly contraction of the programme.
  With regard to representations, I met before Christmas several voluntary and community organisations which operate ACE schemes to discuss how the reduction could be best achieved. On 10 January I met a delegation from Belfast City Council. There has been a flurry of correspondence also with Baroness Denton and myself. The Minister plans to meet public representatives later this month.
  I hope that you find this reply useful. I will of course be pleased to provide further information if you would find it helpful.

  Gun Licences
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what grounds a gun licence may be refused. [8689]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, a firearm certificate shall not be granted unless the Chief Constable is satisfied that:

  the firearm could be held without danger to public safety or to the peace; or

  the applicant is fitted to hold a firearm; or

  the applicant has 'good reason' for the firearm; or

  the applicant is not prohibited from holding a firearm by virtue of article 22 of the order;

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for gun licences have been made in each of the last five years; and how many have been refused and for what reasons. [8644]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Applications for firearm certificates in the last five years are as follows:

  Applications

  Refusals

  1991

  2,857

  343

  1992

  2,975

  561

  1993

  3,496

  474

  1994

  3,799

  615

  1995 (to 30 November)

  2,985

  510

  Firearm certificates are refused in accordance with the criteria specified in article 28 of the Firearms (NI) Order 1981. A breakdown to show the reason for each refusal would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many gun licences are currently in existence; for how many guns; and what is the breakdown(a) of these weapons by (i) type and (ii) declared purpose

  715
  and (b) of the licence holders by (1) background and (2) location. [8643]

  Sir John Wheeler
  At 30 November 1995 there were 88,092 firearm certificates in Northern Ireland on which 133,869 weapons were held.

  Number

  Shotguns

  85,204

  Pistols and revolvers

  13,044

  Rifles

  13,777

  Air weapons

  21,004

  Miscellaneous1

  840

  1Includes humane killers, signal pistols, starting pistols, collectors items and spear guns.

  Information regarding the declared purposes for which the firearms were sought and the background and location of certificate holders, is not held separately and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Grant
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Housing Executive expects to complete its next review of the costings it employs in determining the amount of grant aid to be paid under its housing grant schemes; when the last review was completed; and when the present level of costings was applied to the determination of these schemes. [9122]

  Mr. Moss
  It is assumed that the costings in question refer to the schedule of rates which the Northern Ireland Housing Executive uses to draw up an estimate of the cost of grant-aided works. This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose chief executive has advised me that costings are monitored and adjusted if necessary, on an ongoing basis, and are reviewed annually. The next annual review is due in April 1996. The last review was completed in, and implemented from, April 1995 and forms the basis of the present costings.

  Education Administration
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which political parties and other bodies he has met to discuss reforms of educational administration; and when he intends to announce his proposals. [8638]

  Mr. Ancram
  The present round of consultation on educational administration which I announced in my statement of 7 September has been limited to the main political parties in Northern Ireland. Meetings have been held with the following:

  The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland

  The Social Democratic and Labour Party

  Mr. R. McCartney QC MP—United Kingdom Unionist

  The Conservative Party

  Sinn Fein

  Democratic Left

  The Workers' Party

  The Ulster Democratic Party

  Labour in Northern Ireland

  716
  Meetings are also planned to take place with the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Progressive Unionist party.

  Decisions will be announced only after I have given full consideration to all the views put to me; it is therefore not possible at this time to be specific as to the date of such an announcement.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [9141]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Staff in agencies of the Northern Ireland Departments have access to the pre-retirement courses provided by the management development centre—MDC—of the Department of Finance and Personnel, which are supported by the chief executives and which are planned to continue for the foreseeable future.

  Agencies of the Northern Ireland Office attend pre-retirement courses provided by its training and development branch; these courses are, and will continue to be, demand-led. Staff also have access to the pre-retirement courses provided by MDC.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a map showing all present and projected wind farms in Northern Ireland and all 33 kV electricity supply lines which are planned for construction within three miles of such sites over the next three years or as much information and for such periods as is available to him. [9124]

  Mr. Ancram
  A map showing the detailed information requested is not available. A drawing indicating the general location of present and projected wind farms and associated 33 kV lines has been placed in the Library. Northern Ireland Electricity plc has no firm plans to construct additional 33 kV lines within three miles of known wind farm sites.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what review he has carried out into the boundaries of areas of outstanding natural beauty in Northern Ireland; and when he expects to publish the results. [9123]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has been reviewing the boundaries of areas of outstanding natural beauty since the introduction of the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. This legislation gives AONBs a broader conservation objective than the Amenity Lands Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 under which nine AONBs were originally designated.

  To date four AONBs have been reviewed and redesignated under the new legislation. In each case there

  717
  has been extensive public consultation both on the boundaries and on Government policies and proposals for each area. Presently a review of the Strangford Lough AONB is underway and the Department has commissioned a landscape assessment prior to commencing a review of the Sperrin and North Derry AONBs.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated level of Government financial support for each local authority, and for Northern Ireland as a whole in constant prices for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97, indicating

  Table showing estimated level of Government financial support for each local authority and for Northern Ireland as a whole in constant prices (1995–96)

  1994–95 £

  Percentage change 1994–95 to 1995–96

  1995–96 £

  Percentage change 1995–96 to 1996–97

  1996–97 £

  Overall cumulative change

  Antrim

  308,819

  8.59

  335,342

  22.79

  411,750

  33.33

  Ards

  1,974,410

  -4.39

  1,887,808

  -11.85

  1,664,032

  -15.72

  Armagh

  1,886,418

  7.43

  2,026,595

  -13.69

  1,749,221

  -7.27

  Ballymena

  683,399

  14.07

  779,530

  -2.09

  763,263

  11.69

  Ballymoney

  891,124

  0.98

  899,864

  -11.07

  800,286

  -10.19

  Banbridge

  935,196

  17.87

  1,102,325

  -9.86

  993,668

  6.25

  Belfast

  6,167,324

  1.54

  6,262,343

  3.23

  6,464,541

  4.82

  Carrickfergus

  816,150

  6.50

  869,165

  -54.86

  392,366

  -51.92

  Castlereagh

  1,067,963

  -14.52

  912,934

  9.05

  995,531

  -6.78

  Coleraine

  416,318

  2.09

  425,025

  6.17

  451,233

  8.39

  Cookstown

  957,895

  7.68

  1,031,469

  8.26

  1,116,623

  -16.57

  Craigavon

  2,199,775

  -4.60

  2,098,505

  -3.10

  2,033,368

  -7.56

  Derry

  3,636,801

  -12.81

  3,170,883

  -16.99

  2,632,202

  -27.62

  Down

  2,162,254

  1.21

  2,188,385

  -3.60

  2,109,288

  -2.45

  Dungannon

  1,619,829

  -1.72

  1,591,994

  -4.52

  1,519,996

  -6.17

  Fermanagh

  1,909,876

  -9.30

  1,732,324

  -7.19

  1,607,803

  -15.82

  Lame

  772,214

  8.81

  840,230

  -28.56

  600,302

  -22.26

  Limavady

  992,078

  7.87

  1,070,145

  -5.96

  1,006,341

  1.44

  Lisburn

  1,952,817

  -20.06

  1,561,015

  -5.93

  1,468,383

  -24.81

  Magherafelt

  1,187,749

  12.65

  1,337,954

  8.62

  1,453,342

  22.36

  Moyle

  575,179

  -5.23

  545,049

  -5.26

  516,362

  -10.23

  Newry and Mourne

  3,858,546

  -7.60

  3,565,337

  -8.73

  3,253,968

  -15.67

  Newtownabbey

  1,421,212

  5.85

  1,504,396

  -8.95

  1,369,712

  -3.62

  North Down

  1,261,446

  -30.23

  880,261

  -36.11

  562,348

  -55.42

  Omagh

  1,777,055

  -2.91

  1,828,841

  -6.80

  1,704,561

  -4.08

  Strabane

  1,864,718

  -1.97

  1,827,997

  -1.33

  1,803,594

  -3.28

  Totals

  43,296,565

  -2.36

  42,275,616

  -6.70

  39,444,054

  -8.90

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider making a substantial increase in the additional state retirement pension paid to pensioners over 80 years of age; and if he will make a statement. [9152]

  Mr. Heald
  We have no plans to uprate the 25p addition which is paid to all pensioners from the age of 80. The income support scheme also provides from that age a higher pensioner premium which is increased regularly.
  718
  the percentage yearly change in each case and the overall cumulative change (i) net of community care and (ii) including community care. [8888]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: It is not possible to provide the information exactly in the form requested, as the provision of community care in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of health and social services boards rather than local authorities. The chart shows the estimated level of the financial support paid by the Department of the Enviornment for Northern Ireland, by means of general Exchequer grant, to each of the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. Other Northern Ireland Departments also make specific grants to district councils to assist both capital and revenue programmes relating to such matters as the arts, sports and tourism.

  This premium, we believe, is of far more help to pensioners on low incomes, and a more effective use of resources, than increasing the existing 25p age addition for all pensioners aged 80 and over regardless of individual need.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees have been dismissed from each Child Support Agency centre since its creation. [8119]

  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.
  719
  Letter from Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about staff dismissed from Child Support Agency Centres.
  Staff can be dismissed for a variety of reasons ranging from failure to meet the required performance standards during probation, through inefficiency and up to misconduct.
  The figures for staff dismissed in each Child Support Agency Centre (CSAC) since its creation in April 1993 are as follows:

  CSAC

  Number of dismissals

  Plymouth

  16

  Hastings

  9

  Birkenhead

  5

  Dudley

  23

  Falkirk

  23

  The figures do not include any information on staff dismissed within the Belfast CSAC. This is because staffing issues at this CSAC are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency.I hope this is helpful.
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the effect on maintenance collected to be set against public funds of taking on the Child Support Agency cases deferred in December 1994. [8140]

  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 Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 16 January 1996:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the effect on maintenance collected to be set against public funds of taking on the Child Support Agency cases deferred in December 1994.
  As you are aware at that time the Agency deferred taking on an estimated 340,000 cases. The Secretary of State set the Agency a milestone target to commence the take on of these cases by the end of 1995. We started taking on the remaining cases in November last year, but in practice had already started to deal with many of them where the parent with care had asked us to do so.

  Special payments made (up until 30 November 1995)

  1993–94 April-March One-off ex-gratia payments

  1994–95 April-March One-off ex-gratia payments

  1995–96 April-March One-off ex-gratia payments

  Continuing ex-gratia payments

  Total ex-gratia payments

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Total number

  Total cost £

  Non jurisdiction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  472.80

  —

  —

  1

  472.80

  Delay in issue of MAF

  —

  —

  1

  105.91

  1

  939.50

  —

  —

  2

  1,045.41

  Delay in issue of MEF

  —

  —

  1

  172.39

  26

  18,259.99

  —

  —

  27

  18,432.38

  Delay in calculating MA

  —

  —

  1

  36.00

  1

  408.23

  —

  —

  2

  444.23

  Delay in issue of DEO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  369.33

  —

  —

  1

  369.33

  Overpaid child maintenance

  —

  —

  1

  1,450.43

  22

  20,974.67

  —

  —

  23

  22,425.10

  Restitution

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  60.80

  —

  —

  1

  60.80

  Incorrect MA

  —

  —

  1

  269.90

  2

  592.55

  5

  348.40

  8

  1,210.85

  Accounting error

  —

  —

  4

  920.12

  1

  258.72

  —

  —

  5

  1,178.84

  Legal costs

  1

  100.00

  1

  1,000.00

  3

  3,490.81

  —

  —

  5

  4,590.81

  Bank charges

  —

  —

  17

  490.23

  5

  1,686.91

  —

  —

  22

  2,177.14

  Travel/post/tel costs

  —

  —

  7

  23.12

  1

  1.69

  —

  —

  8

  24.81

  720 Until the absent parent's circumstances are known it would be impossible to produce a meaningful estimate of the effect of taking on these cases on public funds. We could only do this by examining every deferred case that has subsequently been assessed. These would be impossible to identify.In practice we do not believe the effect on public funds will be very great because a significant number of the deferred cases will be those in which the parent with care had no incentive to pursue their application because the absent parent was on income support.Deferring the take on of these cases enabled us to concentrate on new cases and those that were more likely to result in a positive outcome for the parent with care and the general taxpayer. We believe that this approach will have been of overall benefit to public funds.
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints have been made to the Child Support Agency since its inception; how many complaints have been upheld; in how many cases financial compensation has been paid and on what grounds; and what have been the amounts paid in each case and in total. [7817]

  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 Ann Chant to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 16 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about complaints made to the Child Support Agency.
  Since the inception of the Agency in April 1993 up to the end of November 1995, the Agency has recorded 60,826 complaints. A significant proportion of those complaints concern general child support policy or the legal powers of the Agency. Many of the complaints are from persons who are opposed to the legislation but not actually affected by it. The number of complaints specifically about the Agency's administrative performance is not separately identified, but it is considerably less than the global figure shown above. All complaints on agency administration are investigated although specific information on the number subsequently upheld is not collected.
  Only a small proportion of complaints include a query about or request for financial compensation. Under our Departmental scheme a special payment will be considered where a clear unambiguous error by the Agency has resulted in an actual financial loss to the client. The attached table shows the categories under which special payments have been made, the number of payments made and the total cost of those payments.
  I hope this is helpful.
  721

  Special payments made (up until 30 November 1995)

  1993–94 April—March One-off ex-gratia payments

  1994–95 April—March One-off ex-gratia payments

  1995–96 April—March One-off ex-gratia payments

  Continuing ex-gratia payments

  Total ex-gratia payments

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Number of payments

  Total amount paid £

  Total number

  Total cost £

  Misc expenses (DEO fees)

  —

  —

  1

  1.00

  2

  9.00

  —

  —

  3

  10.00

  Breach of confidentiality

  1

  310.00

  —

  —

  2

  2,500.00

  —

  —

  3

  2,810.00

  Worry and distress

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1,500.00

  —

  —

  1

  1,500.00

  Total

  2

  410.00

  35

  4,469.10

  70

  51,525.00

  5

  348.40

  112

  56,752.50

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what considerations he has given to replacing cold weather payments with an increase in income support; and if he will make a statement. [8448]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Income support provides for all normal day-to-day living needs including heating. The amount of benefit is based on personal allowances paid according to age and family status and flat rate premiums for groups recognised as having special needs, such as disabled and elderly people and families. Benefit rates are reviewed each year and account is taken of all relevant factors, including any increase in the cost of fuel.

  Social fund cold weather payments give extra help to vulnerable people towards heating costs from a sustained period of very cold weather. There are no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a cold weather payment to everyone receiving benefit every winter, irrespective of temperature; and if he will make a statement. [8418]

  Mr. Evans
  The purpose of cold weather payments is to help vulnerable income support recipients with higher heating costs resulting from a sustained period of very cold weather not normally expected to occur in the majority of British winters. A reasonable indication of this is when the average temperature is, or is forecast to be 0 deg. C—freezing point—or below over seven consecutive days. To pay all people receiving benefits, many of whom may not have experienced a sustained cold spell, would not be an effective way of focusing the available resources on those most in need.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reassess the appropriateness of the system for triggering cold weather payments, with particular reference to the distance between the weather stations and the areas in which payments are made; and if he will make a statement. [8417]

  Mr. Evans
  After the end of March each year, the Department reviews the effectiveness of the weather station links used during the winter, through liaison and consultation with the Meteorological Office and changes are made if necessary. Weather stations are chosen by the Meteorological Office which are considered representative of the areas they cover, and are sophisticated and reliable enough to provide the quality of data required for the scheme. We are content that the current network of 55 weather stations provides 722
  straightforward and effective national coverage which at the same time takes reasonable and practicable account of local conditions.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider appointing local committees to determine the payment of cold weather payments on basis of need. [8419]

  Mr. Evans
  No. Our aim for the social fund cold weather payment scheme is to have a simple network of weather stations that covers the whole country and allows automatic payments to be made quickly to those most in need. We achieve this by using weather stations chosen by the Meteorological Office which are considered representative of the postcode areas they cover, and are sophisticated and reliable enough to provide the quality of data required for the scheme. The current network of 55 weather stations provides straightforward and effective national coverage which at the same time takes reasonable and practicable account of local conditions. Local committees would bring inequities into a national scheme which is administered efficiently and effectively.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the suitability of Mumbles for assessing temperatures for cold weather payments so far as the upper areas of the Aberavon constituency are concerned. [10117]

  Mr. Evans
  We are content that the current network of 55 weather stations used for the cold weather payment scheme, including Mumbles, provides straightforward and effective national coverage which at the same time takes reasonable and practicable account of local conditions. The effectiveness of all the weather station links used during the winter is reviewed by the Department, through liaison and consultation with the Meteorological Office, after the end of March each year when the scheme ends. If changes to the station links are considered necessary, they are put in place in time for when the scheme operates again in November.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which stations used for assessing temperatures for the triggering of cold weather payments did not register sufficiently cold weather since 1 January 1996. [10118]

  Mr. Evans
  The temperatures recorded at the following weather stations used in the cold weather payment scheme have not triggered cold weather payments for a period including 1 January 1996 or later:

  Aberporth

  Aughton

  Bedford

  723

  Birmingham airport

  Boulmer

  Bournemouth airport

  Brize Norton

  Chivenor

  Cardiff (Rhoose)

  Coltishall

  Culdrose

  Cilfynydd

  Dunkeswell

  Easthampstead

  Gatwick airport

  Heathrow airport

  Hertsmonceux

  Lerwick

  Lyneham

  Machrihanish

  Manston

  Marham

  Mumbles

  Southampton

  St. Mawgan

  Stanstead

  Stornoway

  Tiree

  Valley

  Wattisham

  Yeovilton.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of pensioners are identified as receiving income from an occupational pension; and what is the mean and median amount received for the latest year for which figures are available. [10199]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to table 4 of "The Pensioners' Income Series 1993", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the mean and (b) the median income of (i) single pensioners and (ii) pensioner couples before and after housing costs in the latest year for which figures are available. [10201]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1 of "The Pensioners' Income Series 1993", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specific diseases or illnesses the War Pensions Agency recognises as being caused by exposure to the nerve agent Tabun during the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment when it awards pensions. [9046]

  Mr. Heald
  The war pensions scheme does not involve the recognition or prescription of specific diseases or illnesses.
  724
  A war pension may be awarded for any disablement which is attributable to or aggravated by service in the armed forces, including voluntary participation in any test programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down.

  Benefits (Non-dependent Deductions)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the savings from changes to non-dependent deduction rates since April 1994, indicating the figures on an annual cumulative basis(a) for 1994–95 and projected figures for (b) 1995–96 and(c) 1996–97. [9390]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The savings from changes to the non-dependent deduction rates in income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit since April 1994 are estimated as(a) £60 million in 19947–95, (b) £110 million in 1995–96, and (c) £155 million in 1996–97 on an annual cumulative basis.

  Notes:

  1. Results have been estimated using data drawn from the family expenditure survey, uprated to the prices and benefit levels of each relevant policy year.

  2. Expenditure is rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Housing Benefit (Easington)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many council, private and housing association tenants in the area covered by Easington district council are in receipt of housing benefit.[9501]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of housing benefit recipients for Easington district council: May 1995

  Total

  Local authority tenants

  Private tenants

  Housing association tenants

  Number of recipients

  12,310

  10,190

  960

  1,170

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, quarterly case load count taken at the end of May 1995.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. The figures refer to the number of benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. The total figure does not sum due to rounding.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Concessionary Television Licenses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has in place to review concessions on television licences for people who are housebound due to disability; and if she will make a statement. [9367]

  Mr. Sproat
  The concessionary television licence is available to retirement pensioners and disabled people living in nursing or residential homes, or certain sheltered accommodation, provided that it meets a number of qualifying criteria and is directly comparable with a
  725
  residential home. The Government have no plans to extend the circumstances in which concessionary television licences are available.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what advice her Department provided to the Director General of the National Lottery relating to his appearance before the Public Accounts Committee. [9561]

  Mr. Sproat
  Officials gave general advice to the director general before his appearance before the PAC on a number of occasions. For the avoidance of doubt, this advice did not include anything about the matter of G-Tech flights.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when Ministers first learned of the use of G-Tech aircraft by the Director General of the National Lottery. [9560]

  Mr. Sproat
  On 11 December 1995.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions were held between the Director General of the National Lottery and(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department on the use of G-Tech aircraft by the director general in the period 4 to 11 December 1995; and what advice the director general was given about the declaration of these flights to (a) the National Audit Office and (b) the Public Accounts Committee. [9583]

  Mr. Sproat
  None.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what was the cash limit on voted provision for the Office of the National Lottery in 1995–96; and what was the outturn expenditure; [8616]

  (2) on what dates section 6 licences for the lottery were granted; how many applied for each licence; and what was the Director General of the National Lottery's role in the granting of these licence; [8610]

  (3) in what circumstances the Director General of the National Lottery may discuss with applicants ways in which they might have restructured their applications to facilitate achieving his objectives. [8613]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]This is an operational matter for the Office of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the right hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the process of selection for the Director General of the National Lottery; from how many applicants the appointment was made; on what date; and by whom. [8617]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]The director general was appointed in accordance with recruitment arrangements which met the guidance set out in the civil service management code. An open advertisement was placed in the press. A shortlist of five candidates were interviewed following advice from a personnel search company and the First Civil Service 726
  Commissioner. Mr. Peter Davis was formally appointed as director general on 25 October 1993 by the then Secretary of State for National Heritage.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she cleared all briefings related to Oflot provided by her press office to journalists in December 1995. [8681]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]There have been no briefings to journalists provided by my press office related to Oflot outside normal contact with the media.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what rules governing conduct have been laid down for the Director General of the National Lottery; and by whom and when. [8679]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]Rules governing the conduct of the Director General of the National Lottery were set out in his appointment letter and attachments signed by the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, and dated 25 October 1993.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if an estimate has been made of the cost of chartering an aircraft and crew similar to that provided by G-Tech's aircraft for a period during which that was at the service of the Director General of the National Lottery. [8615]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]No.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what date the Department asked the Director General of the National Lottery to attend a meeting with senior officials at the Department on Monday 18 December. [8881]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]On Friday 15 December 1995.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what date, in what form, by whom and to whom the Department was first informed that G-Tech had offered use of its private aircraft to the Director General of the National Lottery. [8880]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]I refer the right hon. Member to the answer he received on 10 January 1996,Official Report, column 253.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage in what circumstances she can dismiss the Director General of the National Lottery(a) with minimum contractual notice and (b) summarily; and what is the minimum contracted notice. [8680]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 2 to the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 provides that the Director General of the National Lottery may be removed from office on the grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour. In the absence of grounds for summary dismissal, the director general's contract may be terminated on six months' notice.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on what date, by whom and in what way the Director General of the National Lottery was informed of her Department's advice that his flight and accommodation costs should not be borne by his hosts; and on how many occasions such advice was given. [8678]
  727
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]An internal note of an informal liaison meeting on 4 August 1994 records that the grade 3 head of the arts, sports and lottery group said that, for the proposed US trip, all due propriety should be observed and that the cost of flights and accommodation should be borne by Oflot and not its hosts. This is the only record of such advice. The note was not sent to Oflot.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her oral answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1535, what estimate has been made, and by whom, of the saving to the taxpayer resulting from the Director General of the National Lottery's use of G-Tech aircraft; and how the sum is made up. [8614]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]I have made no estimate of the savings to public funds from use of the G-Tech aircraft by the Director General of the National Lottery.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what have been the total costs of(a) setting up and (b) running Oflot since its inception. [8911]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]This is an operational matter for the Office of the National Lottery. I have therefore asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for
  regulating the

  Arts Council of England grant in aid

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Cash

  1189.15

  185.99

  191.13

  186.13

  182.93

  182.93

  Annual cash

  (3.16)

  5.14

  (5.00)

  (3.20)

  0.00

  change

  —

  (1.7 per cent.)

  2.8 per cent.

  (2.6 per cent.)

  (1.7 per cent.)

  (0 per cent.)

  1994–95 prices

  192.70

  185.99

  186.02

  176.3

  169.05

  165.33

  Annual real terms

  (6.71)

  0.03

  (9.70)

  (7.25)

  (3.72)

  change

  —

  (3.5 per cent.)

  (0 per cent.)

  (5.2 per cent.)

  (4.1 per cent.)

  (2.2 per cent.)

  Cash change from

  (3.16)

  1.98

  (3.02)

  (6.22)

  (6.22)

  1993–94

  —

  (1.7 per cent.)

  1.0 per cent.

  (1.6 per cent.)

  (3.3 per cent.)

  (3.3 per cent.)

  Real terms change

  (6.71)

  (6.68)

  (16.4)

  (23.65)

  (27.37)

  from 1993–94

  —

  (3.5 per cent.)

  (3.5 per cent.)

  8.5 per cent.)

  (12.3 per cent.)

  (14.2 per cent.)

  1The Arts Council of England came into being in April 1995. The sum shown for 1993–94 is that attributable to England fromthe grant-in-aid to the Arts Council of Great Britain.

  The Secretary of State and I have received a number of representations from arts organisations and individuals about the allocation of grant in aid for the Arts Council of England which was announced last November. The Arts Council will not allocate its grant in aid to its client bodies until the council meets on 24 January. The Secretary of State has discussed these matters with the chairman of the Arts Council on a number of occasions since November.

  BBC (Transmission Services)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the present running costs of transmission services operated(a) by the BBC and (b) by companies in the private sector currently serving ITV, Channel 4 and commercial radio. [9865]

  Mr. Sproat
  Our consultants, led by Hill Samuel, assessed the cost of transmission to both the BBC and the commercial broadcasters.
  728
  operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) when she last met the chairman or officials of the Arts Council of England to discuss the reduction in its grant in aid for 1996–97; and if she will make a statement; [9699]

  (2) if she will publish figures for the cumulative change in the Arts Council for England grant in aid on an actual or estimated basis for each year from 1993–94 to 1998–99, in both cash and real terms; [9696]

  (3) what representations she has received about the impact of the reduction of the Arts Council of England grant for 1996–97 on (a) reopened theatres, (b) small and medium-scale touring theatres, (c) regional ballet and opera companies, (d) regional orchestras, (e) dance training, (f) small-scale publishing and (g) the network of art galleries subsidised through the Arts Council and regional arts boards; [9700]

  (4) if she will publish figures for the grant in aid to the Arts Council for 1993–94 to 1996–97 and estimates for 1997–98 to 1998–99, in cash terms, the annual change for each year in cash and real terms and the relative percentage changes. [9697]

  Mr. Sproat
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the effect on the charges to the BBC for its transmission services of the privatisation of those services. [9866]

  Mr. Sproat
  Our consultants, led by Hill Samuel, assessed the effect of privatisation on the cost to the BBC of transmission services. We have determined that the Office of Telecommunications will regulate the costs of any private sector supplier with which the BBC subsequently contracts to provide transmission services, to ensure that the cost to the corporation of its current transmission services does not increase in real terms.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if the privatisation of BBC transmission facilities will lead to separation of World Service transmitter operations from domestic operations. [9863]

  Mr. Sproat: That is a matter to be determined in preparing for the privatisation.

  BBC Digital Terrestrial Services
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the BBC's development of digital terrestrial radio and television. [9864]

  Mr. Sproat
  The BBC is playing a crucial role in the development of digital terrestrial radio and television. It began to broadcast its five national radio services in digital form on 27 September 1995. It is working with the Independent Television Commission on detailed frequency planning for the launch of digital terrestrial television, and is an active member of the Digital Television Group, an industry body seeking to co-ordinate the technical and commercial development of digital terrestrial television.

  We have offered the BBC exclusive use of the digital television multiplex which will provide the greatest geographical coverage in the UK. This gives the BBC the opportunity to be at the forefront of digital technology, and to maintain and develop its public service remit into the 21st century. It enables them to make firm plans for that multiplex, and I understand that these may include widescreen versions of BBC1 and BBC2, complemented by new services, perhaps encompassing additional news, sport and parliamentary coverage and an enhanced Ceefax service.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her latest estimate of the cost to public funds arising from the fire and restoration of Windsor castle. [8907]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]The current estimated cost of the Windsor castle fire restoration is £36 million, of which £10.8 million will be met from public funds.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the secretary of State for National Heritage what costs her Department and executive agencies have incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and if he will list the companies concerned. [9748]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]The Department of National Heritage and its executive agencies have not incurred any costs as a result of withdrawing from contracts for mobile phones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what agreements her Department and its executive agencies have with companies for the provision of mobile and car phones; and if he will list the companies having these contracts, the duration of the contracts, the number of phones covered by each agreement and the cost to public funds of each agreement. [9746]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]The Department of National Heritage and its executive agencies have agreements with Cruse Technical Services and AutoRentals for the provision of mobile phones. The Department currently has contracts with 11 air-time providers.
  730

  Provider

  Number of mobiles on line

  Mercury

  4

  Vodafone

  25

  Vodacom

  9

  Cellnet

  14

  Uniqueair

  14

  BT Mobile

  13

  Peoples Phone

  2

  Motorola

  7

  Hutchinson Telecommunications

  3

  Orange

  1

  TalkLand

  4

  All contracts are of one-year duration. There is no cost to public funds for any of the contracts that are currently held beyond standard rental and call charges.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what procedures were used by her Department in awarding contracts for the supply of mobile and car phones to her Department and its executive agencies; and which companies were involved in tendering for these contracts. [9747]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]All contracts for the provision of mobile phones are let according to standard Government guidelines on procurement. Quotations have been sought from a range of companies, including but not limited to: Mercury, BT Mobile, Cellnet, Vodac, London Car Telephones, Uniqueair, Peoples Phone and Vodafone.

DEFENCE

  Research and Development Projects
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research and development projects in universities are currently being funded by his Department; how much these projects are worth; and in how many universities these projects are being funded. [9042]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In 1993–94, the last year for which research expenditure figures are available, it estimated that some –33 million was spent with universities and further education establishments—table 1.5, UK Defence Statistics 1995. Currently, we have research agreements with some 70 such institutions. It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of the number of projects covered by these agreements without incurring disproportionate cost. Expenditure on development is mainly with industry.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what offers for the non-military use of RAF Finningley have been received. [9859]

  Mr. Soames
  To date, 38 recorded expressions of interest have been received ranging from interest to individual buildings and plots of land to interest in the whole site. The details of the persons and companies involved is commercially confidential. We hope to commence full marketing of the site within the next few months.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent of the threat posed to the United Kingdom by the development over the next decade of ballistic missile capability by countries which currently have no such capability. [10267]

  Mr. Soames
  We consider it unlikely that any nation aspiring towards a ballistic missile capability will be able to develop systems capable of threatening the UK mainland within the next 10 years. However, there is no room for complacency and we will continue our efforts, with others, to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, and will keep the situation under careful review.

  Gulf War (Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the final cost of major equipment lost and munitions consumed in the Gulf war and in associated training. [8765]

  Mr. Soames
  The cost of major equipment lost and of munitions and minor items consumed in the Gulf conflict which were not replaced was 00A3;245 million. These costs are included in the current estimate of additional military costs of the Gulf conflict to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total costs arising from British involvement in the Gulf war. [8766]

  Mr. Soames
  The current estimate of the additional military cost of the Gulf conflict is £2.494 billion, spread over several years. The Export Credits Guarantee Department estimates that total claims arising from the Gulf conflict, including those outstanding, amount to £637 million. Other Departments incurred minor costs in respect of the conflict.

  The bulk of these costs have been offset by the generous cash contributions from other Governments totalling 00A3;2.049 billion.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations have been made to him concerning correlations between military low altitude flying and permanent hearing damage to children between birth and one; and if he will make a statement. [9883]

  Mr. Soames
  I have received no such representations.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce a new minimum height limit on flight training and a maximum speed over residential areas; and if he will make a statement. [9884]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans at present to alter height and speed restrictions for low-flying military aircraft. However, the regulations governing the use of the United Kingdom low flying system are kept under continuous review.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impacts of military low altitude flights on the health and safety of residents of the areas overflown. [10233]
  732
  Mr. Soames
  We closely monitor scientific research on noise and health. With the exception of hearing, the evidence has not established a causative link between environmental noise—including that from military low flying—and health. In the case of hearing, we believe that the restrictions that we place on the heights, speeds and operating procedures of military aircraft should ensure that the level of noise experienced on the ground is not harmful, given the brief exposure involved.

  We have also commissioned our own study into the feasibility of carrying out meaningful epidemiological research. This work is being conducted in co-operation with the US and Canadian Governments and a report is expected later this year. In the meantime, we believe that our current low flying operating procedures reflect the best available medical and scientific advice.

  Safety is of utmost importance at all stages of our flying training programme and there are strict regulations and operating procedures in place to safeguard the general public and our aircrews. These are kept under continuous review.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the spending by his Department on external advice in relation to the Scott inquiry; and how much has been spent on legal advice and for whom. [10226]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The amount so far spent by my Department on external advice in relation to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry is £215,862; this consists entirely of legal advice. This cost includes the provision of advice by the Treasury Solicitor's Department. The names of the individuals and their legal advisers are confidential to them.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has(a) read, collated or received and (b) authorised civil servants or any other persons to read, collate or receive copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated by Sir Richard Scott to Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10227]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The handling of extracts of Sir Richard Scott's draft report, subject to guidance received from the inquiry, is for those to whom they are sent. The Government do not disclose details of correspondence between the inquiry and individual witnesses.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons in his Department employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any connection in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10225]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The direct salary cost of officials within my Department wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry since 1992 is approximately £218,000. Other officials will inevitably be involved from time to time; their direct salary cost is unquantifiable.

  Gulf War (Veterans' Children)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from doctors on the need for an independent inquiry into the
  733
  incidence of birth deformities among the children of Gulf war veterans; and if he will make a statement. [9928]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no record of any representations having been received from doctors on the need for an independent inquiry into the incidence of birth deformities among children of Gulf war veterans.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission an independent inquiry into the incidence of birth deformities among children of Gulf war veterans; and if he will make a statement. [9929]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is not aware of any established scientific or medical evidence to suggest that there is a higher incidence of birth abnormality among children of Gulf war veterans than exists in the general population. In the circumstances, there are no grounds for an independent inquiry. However, as part of its investigations into the health effects of Gulf war service, my Department is actively considering, in conjunction with civilian medical specialists recommended by the Royal College of Physicians, whether there is any further research that should be undertaken in this area.

  Official Service Residences
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of official service residences. [10099]

  Mr. Soames
  Our policy is to implement the Cazalet report and we shall be making an announcement shortly.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sums have been authorised for expenditure on each of the official service residences since February 1995. [10100]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not yet held centrally. However, my Department gathers this information annually by financial year for internal reporting purposes and to provide information to the House of Commons Defence Committee. This information will be available later in the year.

  SAS
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning manpower levels in the SAS. [10103]

  Mr. Soames
  Manning of the SAS is being maintained at a satisfactorily high level.

  Royal Army Medical College
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the future of the Royal Army medical college at Millbank, London; what functions the college currently carries out; and which college will carry out these functions in the future. [9955]

  Mr. Soames
  The Royal Army Medical College at Millbank provides postgraduate training in military surgery, military medicine, Army pathology, military psychiatry, preventive medicine, military entomology, general practice and the dental sciences. The future of the 734
  college is being examined on a tri-service basis, although no specific recommendations have yet been made. There will be normal consultation when firm proposals emerge.

  Missiles Contract
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will place a contract for his Department's conventially armed stand-off missiles. [9956]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We expect to be in a position to place a contract in late 1996.

  Land Mines (Bosnia)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia. [9957]

  Mr. Soames
  IFOR estimates that up to 5 million land mines, including anti-personnel mines, may have been laid in Bosnia.

  Partnership for Peace
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost per annum to his Department of NATO's partnership for peace process. [9977]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK's direct contribution to the commonly funded NATO costs of the partnership for peace programme is estimated to amount to some £790,000 in 1996; the costs of UK military personnel seconded to the partnership co-ordination cell at supreme headquarters allied powers in Europe in Mons are some £200,000 annually. In addition, the UK's outreach programme of bilateral co-operation with central and eastern European countries contains many activities which are linked to, or conducted within the spirit of partnership for peace.

  Ammunitions Procurement
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries from which Britain procures ammunition. [10101]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Apart from the United Kingdom, companies from the following countries are current suppliers of ammunition to my Department as main contactors:

  France

  Germany

  Holland

  Italy

  Spain

  Portugal

  Greece

  United States of America

  Canada

  Israel

  RAF Coltishall
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is being spent to replace(a) showers, (b) baths and (c) kitchens at RAF Coltishall; when the

  735
  decision was taken to replace these items; when they were last replaced; and if he will make a statement. [9967]

  Mr. Soames
  A programme is in hand for the improvement of bathrooms and kitchens in family quarters at RAF Coltishall. The cost of the work on kitchens is currently subject to tender action. The estimated cost of new showers, including necessary tiling, is £197,600 and for the replacement of baths, wash-basins, WCs, hot water cylinders and new floor covering, where such replacements are deemed necessary, £102,400. The requirement to install showers and to refurbish kitchens and bathrooms was set in January 1993. The families' quarters are of 1935 and 1955 vintage and original kitchens and bathrooms are being replaced, although some individual items have been replaced previously on a wear and tear basis.

  Mr. David Hart
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 774, what was the purpose of each of the visits made by Mr. David Hart to United Kingdom defence companies; and what further visits to British defence companies are currently arranged for Mr. Hart. [9968]

  Mr. Portillo
  Mr. Hart's visits were made in his capacity as my independent adviser. There are no further visits currently planned.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total cost of each of the last 10 type 23 frigates built for his Department. [9954]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not our practice to publish unit production costs.

  DBS Special Batteries
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts his Department currently has with DSB Special Batteries. [9958]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The central database maintained by the Ministry of Defence Procurement Executive shows that there are 17 contracts valued at approximately 00A3;2.4 million with DSB Special Batteries. It is possible that there may be some other work placed with the company by one of the agencies or local purchase units, but this information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Married Housing Stock
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been authorised for improvements to his Department's married housing stock since 28 November 1995. [9959]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The department continues to maintain, and improve as necessary, all the housing stock for which it has a longer-term requirement.
  736
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the married quarters discounted sales scheme. [10033]

  Mr. Soames
  The Government are committed to ensuring that service personnel get a fair deal in housing terms and the MOD has a number of initiatives to encourage home ownership. Surplus married quarters are sold to service personnel at a 30 per cent. discount on the market value of the property. At the inception of the scheme, it was based on local authority right to buy schemes. Successful applicants are selected by length of service. The scheme is very popular with as many as 60 to 100 applications being received for many of the properties offered for sale. The future of the scheme is being evaluated in the context of the proposals to transfer the married quarters estate to the private sector.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make payments of compensation to those individuals and companies which have suffered injury and damage as a result of munitions dumped in the Irish channel found outside the sanctioned munition dumping grounds. [9927]

  Mr. Soames
  Any claim for compensation to my Department would be carefully considered on the basis of the facts pertaining to each case. If compensation were to be due, it would be paid in accordance with our liabilities.

  Territorial Army
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for further reductions in the strength of the Territorial Army. [10104]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to restructure the Territorial Army beyond those announced to the House on 14 July 1994,Official Report, columns 759–60, and 6 December 1994, Official Report, columns 204–06.

  Advisers
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all of his independent advisers who have made visits to British defence companies in the last 12 months. [9969]

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to him on 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 774. I am not aware of any visit to British defence companies by the other three independent advisers to my predecessor.

  Gulf War (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what reports he has received that British units serving the Gulf war were subject to chemical weapons attack; and if he will make a statement; [9965]

  (2) if he will now carry out an investigation as to whether any British unit serving in the Gulf war was subject to chemical weapon attack. [9966]
  737
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South(Mr.Mullin) on 16 January 1996,Official Report, column 535.

  Aircraft Crashes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and types of aircraft his Department has lost through crashes in each of the last five years; what were the causes of these accidents; and what was the cost of replacement of these aircraft. [9953]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is given in the table. No replacement costs arise since there is an attrition reserve from which aircraft are taken to replace those lost.

  Date

  Aircraft type

  Cause

  1991

  8 January

  Phantom FGR2

  Aircrew error

  10 January

  Gazelle AHI

  Aircrew error

  13 January

  Tornado GR1

  Aircrew error

  16 January

  Gazelle HT2

  Human factors (non-aircrew)

  20 January

  Tornado GR1

  Not positively determined

  19 February

  Scout AH1

  Aircrew error

  18 March

  Canberra T4

  Aircrew error

  10 May

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  Not positively determined

  10 May

  Tornado GR1

  Aircrew error

  29 May

  Harrier GR7

  Technical fault

  1 June

  Sea King HASS

  Aircrew error

  3 June

  Gazelle AH1

  Aircrew error

  8 August

  Puma HC1

  Not positively determined

  29 August

  Jaguar T2A

  Operating hazard

  10 September

  Sea King HAS6

  Human factors (non-aircrew)

  12 September

  Tornado GR1

  Not positively determined

  25 September

  Harrier T4A

  Natural hazard

  30 October

  Phantom FGR2

  Not positively determined

  9 November

  Vigilant

  Technical fault

  14 November

  Lynx AH7

  Aircrew error

  1992

  14 February

  Hunter T8C

  Technical fault

  12 May

  Tucano T1

  Aircrew error

  12 May

  Lynx AH7

  Aircrew error

  14 May

  Harrier GR3

  Operating hazard

  28 May

  Sea Harrier FRS1

  Not positively determined

  30 May

  Viking

  Natural hazard

  9 July

  Buccaneer S2B

  Technical fault

  9 July

  Viking

  Aircrew error

  7 August

  Harrier GR5

  Technical fault

  30 September

  Hawk T1A

  Aircrew error

  16 October

  Bulldog T1

  Not positively determined

  21 October

  Sea King HC4

  Aircrew error

  26 November

  Puma HC1 and Gazelle AH1

  Operating hazard

  1993

  18 March

  Gazelle

  Human factors (non-aircrew)

  19 May

  Chipmunk T10

  Aircrew error

  27 May

  Hercules C3

  Not positively determined

  28 June

  Harrier GR7

  Natural hazard

  1 July

  Hawk T1

  Aircrew error

  20 July

  Gazelle AH1

  Aircrew error

  12 August

  Wessex HC2

  Technical fault

  26 August

  Chipmunk T10

  Aircrew error

  9 September

  Gazelle HT3

  Aircrew error

  17 September

  Wessex HC2

  Natural hazard

  21 October

  Tornado F3

  Aircrew error

  6 November

  Sea King HAS6

  Technical fault

  23 November

  Harrier GR7

  Technical fault

  1994

  6 January

  Sea Harrier FA2

  Human factors (non-aircrew)

  14 January

  Harrier GR7

  Aircrew error

  25 March

  Lynx HAS3

  Aircrew error

  738

  Date

  Aircraft type

  Cause

  10 April

  Lynx AH7

  Aircrew error

  2 June

  Chinook HC2

  Aircrew error

  7 June

  Tornado F3

  Technical fault

  8 July

  Tornado F3

  Aircrew error

  19 July

  Tornado GR 1

  Technical fault

  1 August

  Tornado GR 1

  Under investigation

  1 September

  Tornado GR 1A

  Not positively determined

  19 September

  Tornado GR 1A

  Technical fault

  22 September

  Lynx AH7

  Technical fault

  11 November

  Gazelle AH 1

  Aircrew error

  15 December

  Sea Harrier FRS 1

  Technical fault

  1995

  10 March

  Tornado F3

  Under investigation

  16 May

  Nimrod R1

  Under investigation

  1 June

  Harrier GR 7

  Under investigation

  21 June

  Jaguar GR 1A

  Under investigation

  5 August

  Viking

  Under investigation

  10 August

  Hawk T 1W

  Under investigation

  20 August

  Lynx AH7

  Under investigation

  27 August

  Viking

  Aircrew error

  2 September

  Nimrod MR2

  Under investigation

  5 October

  Gazelle HT2

  Under investigation

  30 October

  2 x Tornado F3

  Under investigation

  1996

  10 January

  2 x Tornado F3

  Under investigation

  11 January

  Tornado GR 1

  Under investigation

  Vehicle Procurement
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the procurement of new utility vehicles and ambulances for the British Army; and if he will make a statement. [10825]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There is a pressing need to replace about half the current fleet of Land Rover utility vehicles, many of which have reached the end of their operational lives. Subject to the satisfactory completion of contractual negotiations, we propose to place an order with Land Rover for about 8,000 new vehicles, known commercially as "Defender XD", to meet the Army's light and medium utility truck requirement. We also intend to place an order for 65 additional Pinzgauer vehicles, supplied by Steyr Daimler Puch, to enhance the fleet of these vehicles which is already successfully in service to meet the Army's heavy duty medium truck requirement.

  The Army and Royal Marines also need to replace their aging battlefield ambulances with vehicles providing better conditions for casualties, improved medical facilities and greater reliability. The competition for this programme has been particularly close, with vehicles offered by Land Rover and Steyr Daimler Puch both meeting the operational requirement. Both vehicles demonstrated excellent technical qualities. The Land Rover however, provides, in particular, excellent working conditions for the medical crew and commonality both with the new utility vehicles and the in-service Land Rover fleet. Also its acquisition cost is lower than the Steyr. We have, therefore, decided to award the contract for the supply of about 800 ambulances to Land Rover, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of contract negotiations.

  These decisions are good news for the armed forces. Both of the new Land Rover vehicles will enter service

  739
  this summer and will be available for operational deployment in support of IFOR.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of state for Defence if he will make a statement about the procurement of military ambulances. [10484]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant)

  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision will be taken on the winner of the contract for the provision of non-operational B vehicles to the British forces in Germany. [10735]
  740
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have decided to award the contract for the provision of non-operational B-vehicles to the British Forces in Germany to Ryder plc with its sub-contractor PHH plc, subject to a successful conclusion of contractual negotiations.

  The award of this contract follows a rigorous competition involving a number of German companies as well as Ryder plc. The competition was run under European Union restricted procedures for public contracts. We decided that the Ryder plc bid offered a high standard of technical and commercial confidence and the best value for money to the British forces in Germany and to the taxpayer.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has(a) read or received and (b) authorised civil servants or any other persons to collate or receive copies of draft sections of Sir Richard Scott's report circulated by Sir Richard Scott to Ministers, civil servants and other persons. [10218]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons in the Deputy Prime Minister's Office and the Office of Public Service employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any connection in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10217]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary on 8 November 1995, Official Report, column 861.

  Civil Servants (Industry Links)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many serving civil servants are involved in the scheme to improve links with industry; [8761]

  (2) how many serving civil servants involved in the scheme to improve links with industry are acting as non-executive directors; which companies are involved; and to what extent civil servants acting as non-executive directors receive payments from the companies concerned. [8762]

  Mr. Willetts
  There are several different interchange schemes with industry and commerce, including secondments, short-term attachments, non-executive opportunities and joint training programmes. In 1995, over 600 civil servants participated in these schemes.

  In 1995, 57 civil servants held non-executive appointments within private sector companies. The companies involved are as follows:

  AEA Technology

  Albert Fisher

  Amec

  Anglian Water

  Avery

  British Approvals Board for Telecoms

  BOC, UK Gases Ltd.

  BTR Industries Ltd.

  Cadbury

  Coats Viyella

  Dalgety

  European Transonic Windtunnel

  Forward Trust Group

  Glynwed Plastics

  Glynwed Consumer Products

  Great Easterhouse Development Co. Ltd.

  742

  Hanson

  HR Wallingford

  IBM

  JC Bamford

  KPMG

  Laings

  Lloyds Register Quality Assurance Ltd.

  Marks and Spencer

  Mott MacDonald

  Moray Firth Maltings

  Optimat

  OGWR Partnership Trust plc

  P and O European Transport Services

  Rank Cintel

  Rank Organisation

  Redland Roof Tiles

  RHM

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  RTZ Borax

  Save and Prosper

  Scottish Design

  Seven Seas

  Stirling Fibre

  Strathclyde Greenbelt Company

  Tarmac

  Thorn Security

  Three Towns Initiative Co. Ltd.

  TSB Scotland

  United Distillers

  Vickers

  The Wise Group

  Westerhailes Partnership Co. Ltd.

  Woods of Colchester Ltd. (GEC)

  In no cases do individuals receive payment, although some companies pay a small amount to the employing Department.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those European capitals he has(a) visited and (b) plans to visit to discuss deregulation and give the total estimated cost to public funds of these visits. [5877]

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 December 1995, c. 749]I regret that the figure quoted as the estimated travel costs associated with the visits already undertaken is incorrect. The correct information is:"The travel costs associated with the visits already undertaken is estimated to be £12,898."

WALES

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental

  743
  public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6574]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not collected in the format requested. Expenditure on press advertising for my Department and its executive agency, Cadw, since 1990 is set out in the following table. Figures are not held centrally for NDPBs.

  £thousands

  Year

  welsh office

  CADW1

  1990–91

  251

  n/a

  1991–92

  341

  n/a

  1992–93

  350

  34

  1993–94

  269

  58

  1994–95

  247

  35

  1995–96

  394

  26

  1Cadw was set up as an executive agency in April 1991.

  2Figures are not readily available and can be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  School Milk
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures for the consumption of milk under the European Union school milk scheme for each of the last five years in both primary and secondary schools in Wales; and if he will make a statement on the projected effect on school milk consumption in Wales of the Government's planned cut in subsidy for the provision of milk in schools, and its net effect on the Welsh Office budget after taking into account any loss of European Union subsidy. [8464]

  Mr. Hague
  The total milk consumption in primary and secondary schools in Wales—including for catering—funded by the scheme was as follows:

  Academic year

  Litres (millions)

  1990–91

  3.7

  1991–92

  3.9

  1992–93

  4.0

  1993–94

  3.2

  1994–95

  2.9

  As the funds to local authorities are provided by the intervention board executive agency, there will be no effect on the Welsh Office budget.

  Play Groups
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pre-school play groups there are in each of the counties of Wales. [9331]

  Mr. Richards
  The latest available figures provided by Wales PPA are for 1994–95. They are taken from the annual report 1994–95, and are as follows:

  Number

  Clwyd

  81

  Dyfed

  45

  Mid Glamorgan

  83

  South Glamorgan

  93

  744

  Number

  West Glamorgan

  25

  Gwent

  74

  Gwynedd

  27

  Powys

  38

  Wales

  466

  These do not include combined parent and toddler play groups.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the amount of part-time and full-time employment generated by the play group movement. [9328]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Long-stay Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people suffering from(a) mental handicap and (b)mental illness, are currently being cared for in long-stay hospitals in Wales; what is Welsh Office policy for providing aid in the community for the residents of each of the long-stay hospitals; and what is the target date for each hospital for ending the current mode of care for patients. [9337]

  Mr. Hague
  Numbers of residents in(a) mental handicap and (b) mental illness long stay hospitals at 31 March 1994—latest available validated statistical data—are given in the following table. These figures exclude those hospitals that were open as at 31 March 1994 but have subsequently closed.

  The mental illness strategy aims to promote the development of a multi-agency approach to the delivery of services, with a range of mental health care within community settings supported by appropriate hospital and residential care. The mental handicap strategy promotes care within the community with additional help and support as appropriate. The resettlement of individuals should take place only after a full multi-agency assessment. Hospitals will be closed only when appropriate alternative provision is in place and when local approval has been reached.

  Local approval has been agreed for the closure of Talgarth, Powys (1997), Hensol, Mid Glamorgan (1999) and Llanfrechfa Grange, Gwent (1997). The remaining hospitals do not yet have an agreed closure date.

  March 31 1994

  Mental handicap resident patients

  Bryn-y-Neuadd

  159

  Hensol

  244

  Ystrad Mynach Bungalow Units

  18

  Ely

  207

  Llanfrechfa Grange

  92

  Bronllys

  30

  Brynhyfryd

  33

  Llys Maldwyn

  41

  Other hospitals

  103

  Wales total1

  927

  745

  March 31 1994

  Mental illness resident patients

  Cefn Coed Hospital, West Glamorgan

  251

  Whitchurch Hospital, South Glamorgan

  299

  Pen-y-Fal Hospital, Gwent

  191

  Talgarth Hospital, Powys

  139

  St. Cadoc's Hospital, Gwent2

  198

  St. David's Hospital, Dyfed

  204

  Other hospitals

  1,145

  Wales total1

  2,427

  1Excluding residents in hospitals that have closed since 31 March 1994.

  1Figures for St. Cadoc's include old age psychiatry beds at St. Woolos.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with learning difficulties there are in long-stay hospitals in each of the health authority areas in Wales at the latest date for which information is available; what were the corresponding figures five and 10 years ago; and what he forecasts the figure will be in 12 months and two years time. [9960]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows.

  Patients resident in hospitals for people with learning disabilities

  11985

  11989

  11994

  Clwyd

  74

  52

  15

  Dyfed

  83

  45

  49

  Gwent

  383

  286

  93

  Gwynedd

  272

  253

  159

  Mid Glamorgan

  461

  388

  268

  Powys

  191

  152

  104

  South Glamorgan

  375

  324

  207

  West Glamorgan

  106

  55

  32

  Wales

  1,945

  1,555

  927

  1At 5 April.

  2At 31 March.

  No forecasts of the number of residents in hospitals have been made by the Welsh Office.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policies he has to assist special needs children into pre-school education. [9330]

  Mr. Richards
  Local education authorities have the responsibility of making appropriate provision for a child under five who has been identified as having special educational needs. The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs gives guidance on special education provision for the under fives. Our proposed voucher scheme will apply to all four-year-olds, including those with special needs.

  Autism
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the services 746
  available to (a) children and (b) adults with autism; and what plans he has to enhance these services. [9255]

  Mr. Richards
  Health and local authorities are responsible for identifying individuals with autism and for the provision of appropriate services.

  As part of a project to promote the development of services to people with autism in Wales, the National Autistic Society has recently completed an audit of autism-focused services in Wales. This project is supported by the Welsh Office, through the Welsh mental handicap strategy. We have considered the society's findings and have suggested that they be made available to health and unitary authorities.

  Ofsted Inspectors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Ofsted inspectors have(a) early years teaching qualifications and (b) early years teaching experience; and if he will make a statement. [9553]

  Mr. Richards
  Operational issues relating to the work and organisation of the Office for Standards in Education are matters for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England. By agreement with the hon. Member these questions have been referred to Mr. Woodhead.

  Housing
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grants are currently available for the conversion into dwelling houses of shops which are no longer financially viable; and if he will make a statement. [9870]

  Mr. Hague
  District councils may give discretionary home renovation grants to convert buildings, including shops, into dwellings. Over the past five years we have made available £20.5 million which has created more than 1,300 such dwellings. For 1996–97 councils can support such grants from the £179.6 million I have made available to them for home renovation.

  Llangollen International Eisteddfod
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will support the nomination of the Llangollen international eisteddfod for the Nobel peace prize in its jubilee year; and if he will make a statement. [9871]

  Mr. Hague
  The Nobel committee does not reveal the identities of candidates for the peace prize. These only become known if nominators make their proposals known and I am not aware that the Llangollen international Eisteddfod has been nominated. The Nobel committee has made it clear that supporting candidates serves no purpose and could even be interpreted as an attempt unfairly to influence the committee.

  Chester-Holyhead Rail Line (Electrification)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) by what date the electrification of the railway line between (1) Chester and Holyhead is planned to be completed; and if he will make a statement; [9872]
  747
  (2) if he will make a statement concerning plans for the electrification of the railway between Chester and Holyhead. [9873]

  Mr. Hague
  The need, timing and method of improving the rail infrastructure is primarily a matter for Railtrack plc and its customers, the train operators. However, I understand there are currently no plans for the electrification of the railway line between Chester and Holyhead, but that other forms of upgrading the line are under review.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what European Community funding is available to assist the electrification of the Chester to Holyhead railway line; and if he will make a statement. [9885]

  Mr. Hague
  Should they decide to electrify the line Railtrack would be eligible to apply for assistance towards capital expenditure from the trans European network fund and the European Investment Bank. Loan guarantees might also be available from the European investment fund.

  Teachers (Employment Costs)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the total employment costs of teachers in each local education authority from 1990–91 to 1995–96 and the average cost of employing a teacher in (i) cash and (ii) real terms in each of these years. [10279]

  Mr. Richards
  Total expenditure on teachers' salaries in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in each local education authority from 1990–91 to 1993–94 is given in the following table. This includes home teaching and individual teaching at other establishments, for example, hospitals and special units offered by social services. Information is not yet available for 1994–95 or 1995–96.

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Cash

  Clwyd

  70,908

  79,532

  89,764

  81,224

  Dyfed

  67,273

  75,171

  83,976

  84,433

  Gwent

  77,978

  78,954

  85,859

  89,638

  Gwynedd

  42,785

  47,478

  52,605

  52,794

  Mid Glamorgan

  100,579

  113,235

  125,781

  127,394

  Powys

  21,432

  24,585

  27,645

  28,120

  South Glamorgan

  69,419

  78,972

  86,260

  84,343

  West Glamorgan

  67,067

  72,835

  79,423

  79,906

  Total Wales

  517,441

  570,762

  631,313

  627,852

  Constant

  1994–95 prices

  Clwyd

  82,202

  86,782

  94,117

  82,748

  Dyfed

  77,988

  82,023

  88,048

  86,017

  Gwent

  90,398

  86,151

  90,023

  91,320

  Gwynedd

  49,599

  51,806

  55,156

  53,785

  Mid Glamorgan

  116,598

  123,557

  131,880

  129,785

  Powys

  24,846

  26,826

  28,986

  28,648

  748

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  South Glamorgan

  80,476

  86,171

  90,443

  85,926

  West Glamorgan

  77,749

  79,474

  83,274

  81,405

  Total Wales

  599,855

  622,790

  661,927

  639,634

  Source:

  Revenue Outturn Returns.

  The average cost of employing a teacher in maintained nursery, primary, secondary, and special schools as at March of each of the years 1991 to 1994 was as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Cash

  19,551

  21,918

  23,658

  24,004

  Constant 1994–95 prices

  22,665

  23,916

  24,805

  24,454

  Source:

  Database of Teacher Records.

  Note:

  1Latest available.

  Training
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was in(a) cash and (b) real terms the training budget each year since it became a Welsh Office responsibility; how much in each year in (i) cash and (ii) real terms was directed to the training of young people; and what percentage of this budget is allocated to the training and enterprise councils. [10285]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is contained in the following tables.

  Employment and training budget

  Cash

  Real terms

  1992–931

  151.9

  151.9

  1993–941

  144.7

  140.6

  1994–952

  147.4

  140.6

  1995–963

  148.7

  138.0

  1Departmental report 1995, outturn.

  2Appropriation account 1994–95, outturn.

  3Departmental report 1995, provision.

  Youth programmes

  Cash

  Real terms

  1992–931

  42.7

  42.7

  1993–941

  40.4

  39.3

  1994–952

  39.4

  37.6

  1995–963

  48.5

  45.0

  1Departmental report 1995, outturn.

  2Appropriation account 1994–95, outturn.

  3Departmental report 1995, provision.

  TEC youth programme budgets (as a percentage of total youth programme budgets above)

  Per cent.

  1992–93

  97

  1993–94

  99

  749

  TEC youth programme budgets (as a percentage of total youth programme budgets above)

  Per cent.

  1994–95

  99

  1995–96

  96

  The balance of funding on this programme relates to expenditure that is borne centrally on youth bridging allowances and on the youth training follow-up survey.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of the uniform business rate on the occupancy of commercial premises in Llanfair Caereinion. [9879]

  Mr. Hague
  Business rate is only one of a number of factors which may affect the occupancy of commercial premises. Since the introduction of the 1995 rating list, numbers of empty properties, as indicated by empty property rate relief, have remained stable in Llanfair Caereinion.

  Bryn-y-Neuadd Long-stay Hospital
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current annual cost of running Bryn-y-Neuadd long-stay hospital at Llanfairfechan; and what was the corresponding cost, in 1996 prices, five and 10 years ago. [9961]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of individual hospital expenditure has not been available centrally since 1990–91. The annual cost of running Bryn-y-Neuadd long-stay hospital for 1990–91 and 1985–86 at 1996–97 prices was £6.653 million and £5.840 million respectively.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many residents there are at present in the Bryn-y-Neuadd long-stay hospital at Llanfairfechan; what was the corresponding number five and 10 years ago; and what he forecasts the number will be in 12 months and two years time. [9962]

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Plans

  Outturn

  Plans

  Outturn

  Plans

  outturn

  Plans

  Outturn

  Plans

  Forecast Outturn

  Plans

  Net capital expenditure:

  Cash terms

  92.2

  92.2

  106.4

  107.4

  115.5

  1151.7

  122

  122.1

  111.9

  111.9

  93.5

  Real terms2

  106.9

  106.9

  116.1

  117.2

  121.1

  159.1

  124.3

  124.4

  111.9

  111.9

  91.0

  Units started

  n/a

  3,660

  3,900

  4,439

  4,000

  4,340

  4,000

  4,318

  4,000

  3,900

  3,500

  Units completed

  33,000

  3,060

  3,500

  3,548

  4,000

  45,274

  4,050

  4,408

  4,000

  4,180

  3,550

  n/a - not available.

  1 Includes £35 million allocated by the Secretary of State under the acquisition initiative.

  2 Constant 1994–95 prices.

  3 Includes 900 rehabilitation.

  4Includes 1,198 purchased under the acquisition initiative.

  For 1996–97 I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the House on Wednesday 13 December, Official Report, columns 1002–7.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of total standard spending in(a)
  750
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  Patients resident in Bryn-y-Neuadd hospital

  Learning disability

  Mental illness

  19851

  234

  0

  19891

  223

  0

  19942

  159

  23

  1At 5 April.

  22 At 31 March.

  No forecasts of the number of residents in hospitals have been made by the Welsh Office.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what date it was planned, in the context of the all-Wales strategy for mentally handicapped adults and children of 1983, that Bryn-y-Neuadd hospital at Llanfairfechan, would be phased out of its role as a long-stay hospital for people with learning difficulties; what plans he has to continue to pursue that objective; and what is the new revised target date for achieving their objective. [9963]

  Mr. Hague
  No date for closure has been agreed and no formal consultation has taken place. Additional Welsh Office funds have been agreed for 1997–98 and 1998–99 which will provide support for a phased process of resettlement which will enable over 500 people to move from long-stay institutions into more appropriate forms of alternative care. Resettlement from Bryn-y-Neuadd will commence when resources become available. The possibility of providing additional funding will be reviewed in three years time.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the amount of money made available for Tai Cymru in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97 and the number of houses which (i) his Department estimated would be built and (ii) were built in each year up to 1994–95. [10042]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The available information on the capital programme is as follows:

  96 and (b) 1996–97 excluding amounts made available to police authorities. [10034]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of total standard spending in Wales, excluding that made available to the police authorities, is £2,466,247,000 in 1995–96 and £2,535,937,000 in the provisional 1996–97 settlement.
  751
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the revenue support grant for local authorities in each of the years from 1990–91 to 1996–97. [10036]

  Mr. Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Revenue support grant for Welsh local authorities (including police authorities)

  all amounts in £million

  Year

  Cash

  at 1990–91 prices

  1990–91

  1,139.9

  1,139.9

  1991–92

  1,235.3

  1,162.7

  1992–93

  1,619.5

  1,464.8

  1993–94

  1,668.2

  1,466.0

  1994–95

  1,738.9

  1,500.0

  1995–96

  1,717.0

  1,441.5

  1996–971

  1,790.4

  1,462.9

  1Provisional.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of(a) the maximum council tax increase each local authority will be able to make in 1996–97 while respecting his capping criteria and (b) the levels of local authority spending in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97 allowing for statutory increases. [10040]

  Mr. Jones
  Council tax increases consistent with my right hon. Friend's proposed capping principles will depend on his final settlement proposals. These will be announced at the end of this month. The latest available estimate of local authority net revenue spending for 1995–96 is £2,883.9 million. Local authorities have yet to set their budgets for 1996–97.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the(a) level of additional funding for education in Wales provided by the revenue support grant for 1996–97 and (b) the additional funding made available for education in England. [10278]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement on 28 November allowed for planned public spending on schools in England in 1996–97 to rise by £878 million, of which £774 million is being channelled through the local government revenue settlement. Comparable resources for Wales were included in the £85 million increase in total standard spending announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 28 November.

  With the agreement of the Welsh local authority associations, and with the exception of community care resources, the Government do not identify funding for local government in Wales in respect of particular services.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the amount made available for local authority capital provision for housing in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97. [10041]
  752
  Mr. Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table

  Local authority housing capital provision1

  £million

  Cash prices

  Constant 1994–95 prices

  1990–91

  190.3

  220.6

  1991–92

  194.3

  212.0

  1992–93

  279.4

  292.9

  1993–94

  263.9

  268.9

  1994–95

  265.7

  265.7

  1995–96

  267.6

  260.4

  1996–97

  258.1

  244.5

  1Government provision announced prior to the start of each financial year.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) cash and (b) real terms the amounts made available to local authorities for housing renovation grants in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97, the estimates made at the time of the number of grants which would be awarded and the number which were so awarded in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97. [10043]

  Mr. Jones
  The information is given in the following tables:

  Table 1: Government finance made available

  £million

  Year

  Cash prices

  Constant 1994–95 prices

  1990–91

  95.3

  110.5

  1991–92

  1109.7

  1119.7

  1992–93

  169.3

  177.5

  1993–94

  171.9

  175.1

  1994–95

  2184.0

  22184.0

  1995–96

  179.1

  174.3

  1996–97

  179.6

  170.1

  1Includes £5.9 million for Exchequer contributions for 1991–92.

  2Includes an extra £7 million made available during the year.

  Table 2: Numbers of completed grants

  Plans

  Outturn

  1990–91

  23,500

  28,288

  1991–92

  9,989

  19,663

  1992–93

  20,300

  15,802

  1993–94

  23,100

  16,152

  1994–95

  17,700

  15,061

  1995–96

  16,400

  116,300

  1996–97

  17,000

  n/a

  1Estimated.

  n/a = not available.

  The numbers of grants completed in 1990–91 and 1991–92 include a significant number approved under the Housing Act 1985. Different grant arrangements were brought into effect from 1 July 1990 under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. All figures include disabled facilities grants.

  Figures given for plans made assumptions about the mix of types of grant to be awarded and the associated average costs: no targets by type were set for authorities.
  753
  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he made of the cost of the teachers' pay award for(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 when calculating the revenue support grant; and what are those costs for 1995–96. [10284]

  Mr. Richards
  We expect pay awards in the public sector, including those subject to the recommendations of the School Teachers' Review Body, to be met through increased efficiency and other economies. The local government revenue settlements for 1995–96 and 1996–97 reflect that policy.

  During the 1996–97 settlement discussion, the Welsh local authority associations estimated the cost of the 1995–96 pay award at £19 million.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of local government spending was made up by the revenue support grant in each year since 1990–91. [10035]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following table shows, from 1990–91 to 1995–96, revenue support grant as a percentage of the total expenditure on services to which revenue support grant may apply. The expenditure figures used were obtained from local authorities' outturn information for years up to 1993–94 and from information on budgets for 1994–95 and 1995–95.

  Revenue support grant as a percentage of spending

  Per cent

  1990–91

  51

  1991–92

  50

  £millions

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 forecast outturn

  1996–97 plans

  National Museum of Wales

  a) cash

  8.4

  9.5

  10.5

  11.4

  11.5

  11.6

  11.6

  b) real terms

  9.8

  10.4

  11

  11.6

  11.5

  11.3

  10.9

  National Library of Wales

  a) cash

  3.8

  4.3

  4.8

  4.9

  4.9

  5.1

  5.4

  b) real terms

  4.4

  4.7

  5

  5

  4.9

  4.9

  5.1

  CADW

  a) cash

  9.1

  9.7

  9.2

  9.9

  10.8

  10.5

  10

  b) real terms

  10.5

  10.6

  9.7

  10.1

  10.8

  10.2

  9.4

  Arts Council of Wales

  a) cash

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13.7

  14.2

  14.2

  b) real terms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13.7

  13.8

  13.4

  Sports Council for Wales

  a) cash

  4

  4.3

  5.2

  5.1

  5.7

  5.8

  5.8

  b) real terms

  4.6

  4.6

  5.5

  5.2

  5.7

  5.6

  5.5

  Countryside Council for Wales

  a) cash

  0.5

  14.5

  16

  18.2

  20.5

  18.3

  21.6

  b) real terms

  0.5

  15.8

  16.8

  18.5

  20.5

  17.8

  20.4

  Wales Tourist Board

  a) cash

  7.2

  7.6

  10

  9.7

  10.6

  11.7

  11.7

  b) real terms

  8.4

  8.3

  10.5

  9.9

  10.6

  11.4

  11.1

  The real terms figures have been derived by the application of the latest GDP deflator at market prices with a base year of 1994–95.
  754

  Revenue support grant as percentage of spending

  Per cent

  1992–93

  61

  1993–94

  64

  1994–95

  62

  1995–96

  58

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms (i) the total amounts and (ii) the amounts per pupil that each local education authority was permitted to borrow for capital work on schools in each local government financial settlement from 1990–91 to 1996–97. [10037]

  Mr. Richards
  Most of the borrowing by local education authorities to fund capital work on schools since 1990–91 has been covered by unhypothecated basic credit approvals. Accordingly each authority decides how much of its approved borrowing is allocated to schools.

  Public Bodies (Funding)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the revenue provision in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97 for (a) the National Museum of Wales, (b) the National Library of Wales, (c) CADW, (d) the Arts Council of Wales, (e) the Sports Council for Wales, (f) the Countryside Council for Wales and (g) the Wales tourist board. [10044]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows

SCOTLAND

  Powered Wheelchairs
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what consultations he has had with health authorities concerning the funding of indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs in Scotland; [8626]

  (2) what consultations he has had with user groups concerning the funding of indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs in Scotland over the last 12 months. [8627]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The national services division of the Common Services Agency which is responsible for centrally purchased services set up a working group in early 1995 to look at the future provision of artificial limb and appliance services, which includes the wheelchair service. The working group was made up of representatives from trusts, health boards and all artificial limb and appliance centres; from training, therapy, supplies and primary care interests; a consumer sub-group and a consultation network. It concluded that funding for ALAC services should be devolved to health boards, a recommendation I have approved.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the criteria for qualifying for a publicly funded indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair in Scotland. [8628]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Patients must meet the following criteria:

  1. for medical reasons, be severely and permanently restricted in mobility;

  2. be unable to walk;

  3. be unable to propel a manual wheelchair;

  4. have no problems with visual, cognitive, visuo-spatial or other higher cortical functions or other medical conditions, which would make them a danger to themselves, pedestrians or other road users;

  5. have the ability to comply with the DVLC requirements for motor vehicle drivers concerning epilepsy and other causes of loss of consciousness;

  6. have visual acuity of at least 6/24 (can read a car number plate at 40 ft) and have a field of vision of 120ºin a horizontal plane and 20ºabove and below this plane (equivalent to class 3 vehicle visual standards);

  7. have demonstrated in a driving test and by other means that they have the insight, intellectual capacity and dexterity to operate an electrically powered indoor/outdoor chair (EPIOC) safely and responsibly on their own and without assistance;

  8. have a residential environment which is compatible with the use of an EPIOC, and which includes a storage area with a power supply for a battery charger;

  9. have a local outside environment which is accessible by an EPIOC and compatible with its use;

  10. be able to ensure that an EPIOC will be maintained adequately either personally or by a carer;

  11. have the capacity to derive significant improvement in their independence and quality of life through use of an EPIOC.

  756
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs provided by health authorities in Scotland. [8630]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the overall number of powered chairs issued in the last five years is not held centrally. Details of the number of indoor/outdoor powered chairs and indoor powered chairs purchases since the provision of special funding in 1992 are as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Indoor/Outdoor

  313

  267

  286

  193

  Indoor

  —

  2497

  409

  187

  1For 6 months 1 April 1995–30 September 1995.

  2For the 24 month period 1 April 1992–31 March 1994.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what funding arrangements exist for indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair provision in Scotland; [8631]

  (2) what plans he has to continue to honour the Government's obligation to maintain the funding of indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs in Scotland. [8629]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It was announced in February 1992 that special funding of £2.5 million would be made available in Scotland over the following three years for the provision of indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs.

  Funding has since been renewed and will be included in the funding of artificial limb and appliance centres which is being returned to health boards in 1996–97 through the weighted capitation formula. Notification of the notional allocation for each board was included in the financial allocations for 1996–97.

  Fatal Accident Inquiry
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure the early publication of the fatal accident inquiry report, arising from the hearing in Dingwall, Ross-shire from 20 to 24 March 1995 over the death of Dr. Katherine Margaret Herd; and if he will make a statement. [8642]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for this report rests with the sheriff principal of Grampian, Highland and Islands. I understand that his findings will be published on Thursday 18 January 1996.

  House Standards
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses were classified as below the tolerable standard in (i) Scotland and (ii) each of the district council areas in the last year for which figures are available. [9857]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  This information is published in the Scottish Office housing statistical bulletin HSG/1994/8, "Dwellings below the Tolerable Standard in Scotland: Estimates by Local Authorities for March 1994 and details of action on such dwellings". A copy of the bulletin has been placed in the Library.

  Housing Action Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each district and islands council area each year from 1987–88 to 1994–95, how many(a) housing action areas for improvement and (b) housing

  (a) Housing action areas declared for improvement

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Aberdeen

  1

  —

  3

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Argyll and Bute

  20

  5

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clydebank

  —

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Clydesdale

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbemauld and Kilsyth

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cunninghame

  4

  6

  —

  7

  3

  3

  5

  9

  Dundee

  16

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  28

  4

  —

  17

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  21

  17

  2

  8

  5

  4

  —

  1

  Hamilton

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Inverclyde

  4

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  9

  —

  Inverness

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Kirkcaldy

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motherwell

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  15

  2

  —

  1

  —

  5

  —

  7

  Strathkelvin

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Tweeddale

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (a) Housing action areas for demolition and improvement

  Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Argyll and Bute

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cunninghame

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Housing Association Grant
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what average levels of housing association grant he has assumed for Scottish Homes development programme for 1996–97 for(a) the total housing association and co-operative programme and (b) the housing association and co-operative programme for rent.[10108]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Scottish Homes is currently drawing up proposals for its development programme in 1996–97, based on its public expenditure settlement, and I expect to consider its proposals next month. The average level of housing association grants will be set in the light of the approved programme and the associated performance targets. I shall be looking to Scottish Homes to improve on the current year's target of 60 per cent. leverage across its programme as a whole.

  Scottish Charities Office
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current staffing establishment of the Scottish Charities Office; and what assessment he has made as to whether the office has sufficient resources to enable it to investigate allegations of irregularities within a reasonable time. [10231]
  758
  action areas for improvement and demolition have been declared. [10107]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information for those district councils which have declared either kind of housing action area is set out in the tables.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Charities Office, which is a division of the Crown Office, is permanently staffed by two solicitors, two investigators and one administrative officer. It has access to the services of a chartered accountant on a consultative basis and to general support services within the Crown Office. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that it has sufficient resources to deal with its current workload.

  Right to Buy
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1980–81 the total value of discounts to public sector tenants in Scotland exercising their right to buy. [10109]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The total value of the discounts, being the difference between the assessed market value and the purchase price paid, is set out in the table.
  Value of discounts to public sector tenants in Scotland exercising their right to buy

  1980–81: £37.6 million

  1981–82: £73.3 million

  1982–83: £104.5 million

  1983–84: £130.8 million

  1984–85: £137.9 million

  1985–86: £130.7 million

  759

  1986–87: £147.5 million

  1987–88: £262.9 million

  1988–89: £430.7 million

  1989–90: £521.6 million

  1990–91: £428.4 million

  1991–92: £379.0 million

  1992–93: £382.7 million

  1993–94: £365.5 million

  1994–95: £364.0 million

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each district and islands council in each year from 1989–90 to 1995–96 (i) the planned and

  Table A: Housing support grant £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Forecast 1996–97 £

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  48,841

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Roxburgh

  1,339,141

  1,321,472

  1,139,087

  726,723

  204,134

  0

  0

  Tweeddale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  0

  0

  91,878

  123,120

  154,770

  156,400

  190,563

  Stirling

  0

  0

  132,696

  116,455

  137,399

  171,854

  202,603

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1,684,048

  1,504,110

  1,288,127

  1,151,985

  686,273

  498,105

  18,934

  Nithsdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stewartry

  509,240

  436,944

  175,842

  208,499

  80,855

  0

  0

  Wigtown

  551,246

  600,795

  455,431

  360,746

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kirkcaldy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North-East Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  63,384

  32,556

  Grampian

  City of Aberdeen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34,247

  136,248

  Banff and Buchan

  136,883

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  27,593

  Gordon

  3,788,264

  3,792,482

  3,808,288

  3,598,836

  2,982,207

  2,770,438

  2,894,349

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,922,521

  1,882,382

  1,828,221

  1,587,282

  1,460,318

  897,418

  867,774

  Moray

  528,935

  0

  0

  0

  0

  36,735

  63,944

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  393,499

  386,736

  330,314

  326,070

  242,217

  165,688

  73,030

  Caithness

  1,229,421

  1,330,831

  1,249,076

  1,161,797

  790,443

  433,200

  240,050

  Inverness

  1,949,824

  1,934,977

  1,657,779

  1,299,935

  436,489

  55,190

  104,126

  Lochaber

  2,148,759

  2,398,530

  2,463,394

  2,315,434

  2,028,174

  2,007,230

  1,938,660

  Nairn

  344,628

  350,804

  306,917

  246,839

  223,819

  107,455

  96,627

  Ross and Cromarty

  4,154,244

  4,231,891

  4,159,560

  4,060,836

  3,777,488

  3,617,536

  3,051,099

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,203,495

  1,303,836

  1,343,234

  1,339,757

  1,305,608

  1,280,697

  1,364,216

  Sutherland

  969,864

  1,006,044

  992,735

  853,085

  758,411

  664,305

  677,938

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City of Edinburgh

  0

  0

  526,144

  535,752

  512,148

  551,933

  440,243

  Midlothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  1,775,900

  1,041,664

  618,210

  315,749

  51,203

  78,175

  85,588

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  278,995

  317,125

  301,748

  73,749

  0

  0

  0

  Clydebank

  1,010,546

  650,646

  438,557

  150,464

  0

  0

  0

  Clydesdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16,374

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  760
  (ii) the outturn expenditure on (a) housing support grant (b) non-housing revenue account allocation and (c) housing revenue account capital allocation. [10106]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  For housing support grant, the table sets out the amount of subsidy paid in each year after taking account of any variation orders made. For non-housing revenue account capital and housing revenue account capital, planned expenditure in the tables which follow represents the gross capital allocations issued to each authority taking account of any supplementary allocations or other changes made during the year. Forecast outturn expenditure is provided for 1995–96.
  761

  Table A: Housing support grant

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Forecast 1996–97 £

  Cunninghame

  0

  0

  7,774

  10,760

  22,996

  33,428

  53,238

  Dumbarton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  East Kilbride

  0

  0

  61,626

  100,892

  91,443

  136,479

  213,639

  Eastwood

  0

  0

  8,108

  11,583

  12,449

  36,633

  65,754

  City of Glasgow

  30,697,621

  24,536,123

  22,687,417

  17,400,837

  11,103,999

  594,732

  125,968

  Hamilton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Inverclyde

  0

  0

  153,317

  169,044

  157,531

  164,529

  158,194

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0

  0

  2,382

  15,273

  16,954

  32,469

  37,118

  Kyle and Carrick

  0

  0

  0

  6,720

  58,711

  50,032

  89,768

  Monklands

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Motherwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Renfrew

  0

  0

  28,488

  36,735

  33,768

  37,524

  83,701

  Strathkelvin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  Angus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  City of Dundee

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  51,151

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  0

  29,303

  27,462

  47,026

  80,609

  83,690

  Islands areas

  Orkney Islands

  776,917

  783,399

  639,138

  359,131

  266,699

  0

  0

  Shetland Islands

  4,112,702

  4,395,805

  4,603,666

  4,592,216

  4,249,266

  4,982,433

  4,389,242

  Western Isles

  3,741,152

  3,757,098

  3,907,490

  4,186,649

  3,959,316

  4,433,909

  4,086,242

  Scotland

  65,296,686

  57,963,694

  55,435,945

  47,470,415

  35,852,114

  24,172,768

  21,960,221

  Table B: Non-housing revenue account capital

  £million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0.449

  0.377

  0.489

  0.47

  0.461

  0.458

  0.575

  0.455

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0.79

  0.808

  0.732

  0.739

  0.622

  0.623

  0.833

  0.816

  Roxburgh

  0.592

  0.621

  0.59

  0.635

  0.616

  0.616

  1.026

  1.022

  Tweeddale

  0.4

  0.252

  0.371

  0.324

  0.405

  0.347

  0.47

  0.468

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0.425

  0.395

  0.476

  0.457

  0.532

  0.452

  0.661

  0.589

  Falkirk

  1.318

  1.314

  1.42

  1.417

  1.46

  1.458

  1.639

  1.611

  Stirling

  1.052

  1.083

  1.057

  1.085

  1.139

  1.175

  1.719

  1.715

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0.42

  0.36

  0.38

  0.427

  0.345

  0.262

  0.71

  0.524

  Nithsdale

  0.86

  0.788

  1.101

  1.064

  1.143

  1.153

  1.579

  1.198

  Stewartry

  0.302

  0.237

  0.296

  0.29

  0.287

  0.282

  0.439

  0.435

  Wigtown

  0.765

  0.616

  0.718

  0.545

  0.695

  0.769

  0.835

  0.808

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  0.971

  0.934

  0.867

  0.835

  1.012

  0.888

  1.119

  0.667

  Kirkcaldy

  1.493

  1.37

  1.376

  1.422

  1.61

  1.616

  1.376

  1.376

  North-East Fife

  1.61

  1.512

  1.801

  1.29

  1.512

  1.652

  1.416

  1.416

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  4.342

  4.405

  4.128

  3.701

  4.543

  4.876

  5.081

  6.041

  Banff and Buchan

  1.009

  0.73

  1.138

  0.802

  1.002

  0.674

  1.325

  0.932

  Gordon

  0.86

  0.899

  0.786

  0.842

  1.28

  1.261

  0.929

  0.928

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0.809

  0.636

  0.982

  0.79

  0.85

  0.848

  1.004

  1.03

  Moray

  0.842

  0.897

  1.038

  1.038

  1.264

  1.459

  0.969

  0.968

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.459

  0.414

  0.322

  0.32

  0.368

  0.186

  0.166

  0.139

  Caithness

  0.886

  0.536

  0.966

  0.824

  0.925

  0.672

  1.083

  0.575

  Inverness

  1.468

  1.102

  1.456

  1.332

  1.406

  0.829

  1.109

  0.856

  Lochaber

  0.792

  0.777

  0.773

  0.635

  0.595

  0.595

  0.73

  0.726

  Nairn

  0.135

  0.127

  0.141

  0.131

  0.158

  0.156

  0.161

  0.145

  762 763

  Table B: Non-housing revenue account capital

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Ross and Cromarty

  2.542

  2.580

  2.575

  2.520

  2.339

  2.277

  3.558

  3.458

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0.851

  0.898

  0.794

  0.889

  0.859

  0.884

  0.969

  0.966

  Sutherland

  0.630

  0.582

  0.684

  0.574

  0.645

  0.655

  0.780

  0.774

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  2.191

  2.191

  1.716

  1.721

  1.545

  1.545

  1.159

  1.021

  Edinburgh

  33.962

  37.214

  28.210

  30.865

  18.160

  18.915

  25.426

  25.439

  Midlothian

  0.877

  0.877

  0.747

  0.517

  0.811

  0.562

  0.924

  0.684

  West Lothian

  0.805

  0.837

  0.854

  0.867

  0.853

  0.852

  0.833

  0.842

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  4.970

  4.970

  4.445

  3.946

  5.406

  5.219

  6.075

  6.094

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0.395

  0.375

  0.320

  0.304

  0.411

  0.406

  0.323

  0.319

  Clydebank

  1.005

  0.599

  1.015

  0.865

  0.657

  0.395

  0.413

  0.360

  Clydesdale

  0.774

  0.774

  0.811

  0.819

  0.772

  0.775

  0.789

  0.765

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0.832

  0.467

  0.526

  0.399

  0.767

  0.438

  0.745

  0.563

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0.298

  0.316

  0.338

  0.357

  0.378

  0.284

  0.365

  0.303

  Cunninghame

  3.369

  3.282

  3.528

  3.426

  3.538

  3.609

  3.292

  3.443

  Dumbarton

  0.741

  0.965

  0.537

  0.503

  0.696

  0.702

  0.846

  0.842

  East Kilbride

  0.243

  0.145

  0.274

  0.293

  0.257

  0.293

  0.289

  0.286

  Eastwood

  0.347

  0.300

  0.268

  0.316

  0.169

  0.160

  0.479

  0.211

  Glasgow

  54.853

  52.994

  35.706

  35.623

  24.951

  24.904

  25.444

  25.385

  Hamilton

  1.513

  1.530

  1.553

  1.530

  1.613

  1.615

  1.460

  1.417

  Inverclyde

  3.896

  3.923

  2.716

  2.717

  3.029

  3.070

  4.214

  4.214

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0.450

  0.436

  0.434

  0.433

  0.577

  0.572

  0.512

  0.528

  Kyle and Carrick

  0.684

  0.712

  0.512

  0.570

  0.564

  0.760

  0.669

  0.701

  Monklands

  0.788

  0.413

  0.955

  1.049

  0.868

  0.867

  1.003

  1.004

  Motherwell

  0.829

  0.831

  0.619

  0.512

  0.808

  0.757

  0.978

  0.888

  Renfrew

  4.254

  4.731

  4.168

  4.516

  4.195

  4.334

  4.290

  4.290

  Strathkelvin

  0.656

  0.536

  0.579

  0.614

  0.574

  0.437

  0.776

  0.746

  Tayside

  Angus

  0.758

  0.758

  0.690

  0.661

  0.729

  0.670

  0.841

  0.755

  Dundee

  4.909

  4.153

  4.761

  3.600

  5.371

  5.252

  4.622

  4.586

  Perth and Kinross

  2.526

  2.220

  1.303

  1.087

  1.378

  1.359

  2.146

  2.146

  Islands areas

  Orkney

  1.207

  1.259

  1.263

  0.783

  1.386

  0.084

  1.674

  0.289

  Shetland

  0.684

  0.340

  0.502

  0.310

  0.266

  0.197

  0.578

  0.578

  Western Isles

  3.919

  3.418

  4.771

  4.948

  4.533

  4.549

  4.495

  4.510

  Scotland

  159.807

  156.816

  131.614

  129.549

  113.335

  110.705

  127.921

  123.874

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Forecast outturn expenditure

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0.529

  0.529

  0.500

  0.475

  0.518

  0.518

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0.727

  0.725

  0.801

  0.798

  0.703

  0.700

  Roxburgh

  0.801

  0.794

  0.926

  0.897

  0.829

  0.829

  Tweeddale

  0.543

  0.538

  0.855

  0.618

  0.521

  0.490

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0.741

  0.627

  0.814

  0.728

  0.728

  0.754

  Falkirk

  1.482

  1.477

  1.605

  1.574

  1.631

  1.600

  Stirling

  1.679

  1.700

  2.117

  2.117

  1.600

  1.799

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0.493

  0.473

  0.505

  0.481

  0.518

  0.500

  Nithsdale

  1.350

  1.223

  1.324

  1.167

  1.146

  1.100

  Stewartry

  0.326

  0.129

  0.442

  0.363

  0.311

  0.300

  Wigtown

  0.759

  0.705

  0.995

  0.972

  0.723

  0.727

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  0.995

  0.992

  0.973

  0.936

  1.035

  1.000

  Kirkcaldy

  1.292

  1.073

  1.156

  1.055

  1.244

  1.206

  North-East Fife

  1.357

  1.266

  1.519

  1.358

  1.349

  1.330

  764 765

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Forecast outturn expenditure

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  3.712

  3.702

  4.269

  4.030

  4.468

  4.300

  Banff and Buchan

  1.459

  0.688

  1.083

  0.943

  1.353

  1.300

  Gordon

  0.920

  0.893

  1.799

  1.766

  0.933

  1.883

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0.974

  0.952

  1.200

  1.159

  0.939

  0.500

  Moray

  1.592

  1.593

  1.312

  1.312

  1.353

  1.586

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.277

  0.154

  0.295

  0.203

  0.311

  0.300

  Caithness

  0.895

  1.106

  0.766

  0.732

  0.725

  0.711

  Inverness

  1.170

  1.170

  1.386

  1.386

  1.018

  1.018

  Lochaber

  1.093

  1.114

  0.981

  0.972

  0.809

  0.800

  Nairn

  0.163

  0.058

  0.146

  0.147

  0.199

  0.200

  Ross and Cromarty

  3.798

  3.792

  3.693

  3.692

  3.201

  3.251

  Skye and Lochalsh

  0.919

  0.928

  1.020

  1.011

  0.909

  0.915

  Sutherland

  0.663

  0.607

  0.793

  0.777

  0.716

  0.658

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  1.727

  1.094

  1.802

  1.837

  1.565

  1.396

  Edinburgh

  20.466

  20.491

  26.244

  26.269

  18.875

  20.508

  Midlothian

  0.962

  0.855

  0.988

  0.988

  0.466

  0.466

  West Lothian

  0.870

  0.874

  0.978

  1.001

  0.877

  0.890

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  6.303

  6.331

  7.007

  6.992

  5.855

  5.906

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0.269

  0.141

  0.179

  0.112

  0.311

  0.311

  Clydebank

  0.375

  0.310

  0.446

  0.394

  0.514

  0.495

  Clydesdale

  0.826

  0.826

  0.893

  0.893

  0.800

  0.800

  Cumbemauld and Kilsyth

  0.866

  0.862

  1.063

  1.035

  0.728

  0.700

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0.441

  0.441

  0.470

  0.401

  0.514

  0.499

  Cunninghame

  3.529

  3.537

  3.942

  3.957

  3.585

  3.620

  Dumbarton

  0.934

  0.942

  0.940

  0.997

  0.843

  1.150

  East Kilbride

  0.447

  0.429

  0.409

  0.395

  0.414

  0.400

  Eastwood

  0.264

  0.156

  0.298

  0.252

  0.311

  0.300

  Glasgow

  25.055

  25.030

  26.017

  25.958

  24.159

  24.159

  Hamilton

  1.679

  1.618

  2.050

  1.994

  1.656

  1.600

  Inverclyde

  4.691

  4.692

  4.567

  4.621

  4.346

  4.394

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  0.500

  0.511

  0.689

  0.700

  0.589

  0.589

  Kyle and Carrick

  0.847

  0.840

  1.066

  1.019

  0.932

  0.900

  Monklands

  1.322

  1.289

  1.186

  1.180

  1.106

  1.150

  Motherwell

  0.991

  0.989

  1.054

  1.053

  1.001

  1.001

  Renfrew

  4.344

  4.356

  4.832

  4.773

  4.259

  4.167

  Strathkelvin

  0.790

  0.575

  0.717

  0.668

  0.828

  0.800

  Tayside

  Angus

  0.861

  0.742

  0.847

  0.847

  0.900

  0.900

  Dundee

  4.876

  3.784

  4.680

  4.723

  4.557

  5.166

  Perth and Kinross

  2.172

  2.165

  2.216

  2.211

  2.017

  2.040

  Islands areas

  Orkney

  0.593

  0.100

  0.972

  0.657

  0.935

  1.100

  Shetland

  0.468

  0.468

  0.582

  0.582

  0.500

  0.500

  Western Isles

  4.686

  4.409

  5.019

  4.871

  4.548

  4.565

  Scotland

  122.863

  117.865

  135.428

  133.049

  117.781

  120.747

  Table C: Housing revenue account capital

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  1.000

  0.960

  0.993

  0.949

  1.073

  1.049

  1.097

  1.152

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1.875

  1.884

  1.784

  1.797

  1.822

  1.774

  2.206

  2.190

  Roxburgh

  4.279

  4.457

  4.003

  3.963

  3.528

  3.060

  3.045

  3.041

  Tweeddale

  0.439

  0.462

  0.520

  0.549

  0.800

  0.800

  1.275

  1.275

  766 767

  Table C: Housing revenue account capital

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Central

  Clackmannan

  4.992

  5.371

  4.692

  4.504

  4.524

  4.319

  4.070

  4.277

  Falkirk

  13.802

  13.800

  15.333

  15.328

  17.662

  17.575

  15.461

  15.283

  Stirling

  8.674

  8.631

  7.675

  7.728

  8.396

  8.290

  8.305

  8.254

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  4.500

  4.615

  3.910

  4.098

  3.434

  3.651

  3.333

  3.432

  Nithsdale

  6.154

  6.370

  5.467

  5.788

  4.974

  4.904

  4.890

  4.888

  Stewartry

  1.812

  1.992

  1.443

  1.597

  1.863

  1.813

  1.423

  1.438

  Wigtown

  3.175

  3.080

  3.396

  3.416

  3.449

  3.519

  3.801

  3.549

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  10.470

  10.310

  10.010

  10.001

  11.372

  10.433

  7.845

  7.788

  Kirkcaldy

  12.835

  12.370

  11.804

  11.804

  10.261

  10.245

  7.933

  7.933

  North-East Fife

  5.202

  3.877

  3.116

  4.545

  3.473

  3.448

  3.227

  3.225

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  14.708

  15.032

  14.640

  15.395

  14.699

  16.527

  16.439

  17.293

  Banff and Buchan

  4.208

  4.340

  3.777

  4.288

  5.365

  5.358

  4.154

  4.154

  Gordon

  7.879

  7.991

  7.246

  7.422

  7.106

  7.307

  6.689

  6.492

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3.656

  4.033

  4.096

  5.318

  3.513

  4.051

  4.323

  4.880

  Moray

  5.387

  5.549

  4.833

  5.078

  5.313

  5.543

  4.351

  4.351

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1.182

  1.137

  1.408

  1.325

  1.228

  1.365

  1.208

  1.119

  Caithness

  3.340

  3.569

  2.876

  3.153

  2.697

  2.797

  3.028

  3.044

  Inverness

  7.173

  6.366

  7.283

  6.672

  5.885

  5.614

  5.608

  5.723

  Lochaber

  4.803

  5.152

  3.723

  3.892

  3.093

  3.134

  3.029

  3.104

  Nairn

  1.117

  1.111

  1.198

  1.160

  1.149

  1.169

  1.174

  1.156

  Ross and Cromarty

  6.083

  6.201

  5.987

  5.635

  6.532

  5.697

  6.592

  6.128

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.876

  1.876

  1.765

  1.765

  1.933

  1.872

  1.801

  1.795

  Sutherland

  2.337

  2.443

  1.993

  2.044

  2.023

  2.125

  1.918

  1.927

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  8.838

  8.916

  7.966

  8.038

  8.267

  8.252

  7.576

  7.576

  Edinburgh

  33.468

  33.068

  36.569

  37.905

  34.853

  35.369

  29.806

  29.852

  Midlothian

  5.113

  4.775

  7.269

  7.249

  5.465

  5.426

  5.032

  5.032

  West Lothian

  11.234

  11.229

  7.384

  7.470

  7.989

  8.031

  6.811

  6.858

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  5.218

  4.925

  4.831

  4.620

  5.473

  5.173

  5.212

  5.220

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1.682

  1.490

  2.322

  1.622

  1.474

  1.291

  1.434

  1.188

  Clydebank

  6.961

  7.145

  7.622

  7.074

  7.213

  7.135

  6.520

  6.461

  Clydesdale

  4.141

  4.089

  4.071

  4.069

  4.122

  4.124

  4.002

  3.969

  Cumbemauld and Kilsyth

  1.831

  1.884

  1.464

  1.947

  1.775

  1.773

  2.109

  2.139

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3.170

  3.406

  2.799

  3.363

  3.045

  3.093

  3.641

  3.638

  Cunninghame

  11.410

  11.332

  11.256

  11.393

  10.189

  10.133

  9.036

  8.949

  Dumbarton

  7.518

  8.058

  8.123

  8.547

  7.946

  7.747

  8.593

  8.533

  East Kilbride

  0.761

  0.807

  0.733

  0.712

  1.053

  1.053

  0.986

  0.984

  Eastwood

  1.276

  1.154

  1.559

  1.529

  0.937

  0.974

  0.922

  0.857

  Glasgow

  100.556

  100.559

  102.406

  102.459

  99.372

  99.280

  91.208

  91.151

  Hamilton

  11.597

  11.623

  11.666

  11.750

  9.911

  9.766

  13.070

  13.249

  Inverclyde

  7.156

  7.312

  7.351

  7.635

  8.415

  8.335

  9.899

  9.609

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  8.787

  8.044

  7.033

  8.011

  7.326

  7.321

  6.575

  6.581

  Kyle and Carrick

  7.629

  7.773

  6.945

  7.200

  8.324

  8.483

  8.421

  8.196

  Monklands

  15.862

  15.502

  14.884

  15.365

  13.389

  13.389

  13.688

  13.308

  Motherwell

  18.268

  18.666

  18.431

  18.468

  19.247

  19.241

  17.001

  16.766

  Renfrew

  18.835

  19.279

  20.441

  20.803

  18.707

  18.956

  18.231

  18.127

  Strathkelvin

  5.678

  6.012

  5.618

  5.930

  6.209

  6.402

  5.239

  5.274

  Tayside

  Angus

  5.522

  4.993

  5.643

  5.549

  5.803

  5.415

  5.710

  5.806

  Dundee

  23.786

  21.953

  25.194

  24.639

  18.301

  17.413

  18.280

  17.967

  Perth and Kinross

  7.478

  8.017

  5.796

  5.720

  6.359

  6.812

  6.301

  6.300

  Islands areas

  Orkney

  1.142

  1.142

  1.045

  1.190

  1.142

  0.645

  0.937

  0.607

  Shetland

  4.979

  5.287

  5.347

  5.489

  5.267

  5.353

  4.428

  4.465

  Western Isles

  4.902

  5.310

  4.561

  4.148

  5.045

  4.754

  4.683

  4.885

  Scotland

  487.756

  486.729

  481.300

  489.108

  469.785

  468.578

  443.576

  442.438

  768 769

  £ million

  1995–96

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Forecast outturn expenditure

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  1.341

  1.197

  1.110

  1.088

  1.122

  0.346

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2.289

  2.286

  2.003

  1.967

  1.986

  1.569

  Roxburgh

  3.044

  2.993

  4.082

  4.007

  3.085

  3.158

  Tweeddale

  1.520

  1.513

  0.783

  0.783

  1.200

  1.150

  Central

  Clackmannan

  3.561

  3.733

  3.691

  3.712

  4.019

  3.716

  Falkirk

  13.721

  13.675

  14.106

  13.727

  15.479

  11.930

  Stirling

  7.686

  7.780

  7.788

  7.664

  8.139

  7.970

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  4.212

  4.081

  3.426

  3.405

  3.321

  2.643

  Nithsdale

  5.516

  5.561

  5.094

  5.078

  5.116

  5.100

  Stewartry

  1.702

  1.702

  1.519

  1.519

  1.700

  1.157

  Wigtown

  3.324

  3.234

  3.221

  3.105

  3.198

  3.413

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  7.320

  7.060

  9.194

  9.090

  8.304

  9.066

  Kirkcaldy

  7.533

  7.350

  7.735

  7.481

  7.454

  8.229

  North-east Fife

  4.147

  4.174

  4.685

  4.591

  3.744

  2.912

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  17.557

  18.082

  18.123

  18.161

  15.862

  20.700

  Banff and Buchan

  5.165

  5.165

  5.546

  5.546

  5.500

  4.248

  Gordon

  6.831

  6.610

  7.418

  7.232

  6.686

  4.983

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3.336

  3.262

  3.598

  3.185

  3.760

  5.970

  Moray

  5.832

  5.832

  6.375

  6.211

  5.064

  3.453

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1.515

  1.524

  1.125

  1.032

  1.032

  1.000

  Caithness

  2.338

  2.310

  3.502

  3.497

  2.305

  2.297

  Inverness

  4.647

  4.766

  6.127

  6.233

  5.176

  5.285

  Lochaber

  3.140

  3.290

  3.720

  3.860

  3.110

  4.050

  Nairn

  0.985

  0.981

  1.111

  1.104

  0.807

  0.800

  Ross and Cromarty

  5.839

  5.791

  5.531

  5.510

  5.171

  5.096

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.744

  1.687

  1.645

  1.581

  1.556

  1.550

  Sutherland

  1.789

  1.743

  1.964

  2.065

  1.749

  1.376

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  7.462

  7.435

  8.007

  8.007

  6.964

  6.714

  Edinburgh

  29.004

  29.078

  32.697

  32.548

  33.505

  30.834

  Midlothian

  6.091

  6.091

  7.455

  7.455

  6.284

  5.540

  West Lothian

  7.817

  7.746

  7.800

  7.800

  8.400

  6.679

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  4.971

  4.973

  4,573

  4.591

  4.732

  3.354

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  1.590

  1.165

  1.784

  1.590

  1.860

  1.558

  Clydebank

  5.469

  5.278

  5.686

  5.480

  6.540

  5.582

  Clydesdale

  3.755

  3.755

  3.855

  3.854

  3.401

  3.600

  Cumbemauld and Kilsyth

  1.680

  1.617

  1.761

  1.672

  1.826

  1.621

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3.821

  3.734

  3.819

  3.711

  3.728

  3.355

  Cunninghame

  8.973

  8.677

  9.549

  9.263

  9.611

  7.983

  Dumbarton

  8.716

  8.635

  8.405

  8.418

  6.977

  7.095

  East Kilbride

  0.827

  0.854

  1.194

  1.177

  1.117

  0.931

  Eastwood

  1.090

  0.958

  1.929

  1.826

  1.353

  1.344

  Glasgow

  101.471

  101.443

  98.312

  98.291

  93.842

  91.882

  Hamilton

  9.380

  9.380

  12.661

  12.661

  10.050

  7.231

  Inverclyde

  10.046

  10.045

  10.724

  10.724

  9.100

  9.256

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  6.129

  6.158

  6.113

  6.113

  5.800

  5.800

  Kyle and Carrick

  9.024

  9.024

  9.783

  9.783

  7.100

  7.100

  Monklands

  12.654

  12.500

  16.358

  15.979

  13.509

  14.530

  Motherwell

  18.051

  17.551

  19.519

  19.420

  17.149

  15.917

  Renfrew

  18.855

  18.855

  18.302

  18.302

  20.080

  24.620

  Strathkelvin

  5.354

  5.348

  5.152

  5.152

  6.050

  5.362

  Tayside

  Angus

  5.462

  5.313

  6.367

  6.279

  5.388

  4.712

  Dundee

  16.708

  16.294

  18.458

  18.182

  19.119

  17.116

  Perth and Kinross

  11.810

  11.800

  8.526

  8.525

  6.857

  7.009

  770 771

  £ million

  1995–96

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Outturn expenditure

  Planned expenditure

  Forecast outturn expenditure

  Islands Areas

  Orkney

  0.540

  0.599

  0.623

  0.636

  0.637

  0.650

  Shetland

  4.128

  4.073

  5.053

  4.907

  4.546

  4.400

  Western Isles

  3.484

  3.375

  3.700

  3.677

  3.503

  3.312

  Scotland

  451.996

  449.136

  472.387

  468.457

  444.673

  428.254

  Woodlands
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all Forestry Commission woodlands currently on the market, indicating for each(a) its time on the market, (b) its approximate size, (c) its location relative to a town or village and (d) whether an access agreement has been made to ensure continuing public access. [6092]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]The following Forestry Commission woodlands are currently for sale on the open market:

  Name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Time on market (months)

  Location (m=miles)

  England Buckinghamshire

  Stoke Park Wood

  64

  3

  6m north of Milton Keynes

  Cambridgeshire

  Great and Little Widgham Woods

  55

  3

  6m south of Newmarket

  Salome Wood

  23

  3

  8m north west of Huntingdon

  Cornwall

  Port Eliot

  76

  26

  6m west of Plymouth

  Prideaux

  24

  4

  3m north east of St. Austell

  Wheal Par

  6

  5

  2m north east of St. Austell

  Cumbria

  Bird Dyke (part)

  9

  3

  8m east of Whitehaven

  Chalk Plains

  40

  3

  6m east of Wigtown

  Denton Fell

  627

  3

  5m east of Brampton

  Leesrigg Plantation

  17

  3

  15m south west of Carlisle

  Nuthill and Simpson's Wood

  14

  3

  5m east of Cockermouth

  Sunderland Gill

  28

  3

  5m north east of Cockermouth

  Derbyshire

  Kennel Wood

  5

  14

  4m south east of Matlock

  Moorhall Wood

  8

  14

  5m north of Matlock

  Devon

  Deershill

  11

  5

  2m south east of Great Torrington

  Durham

  Stanley Wood Cottages

  31

  26

  3m north of Crook

  Humberside

  Grenwickdale Wood

  37

  20

  6m south west of Pocklington

  Kent

  Cole Wood1

  22

  4

  4m south west of Ashford

  772

  Name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Time on market (months)

  Location (m=miles)

  Lancashire

  Tythe Barn Plantation

  8

  3

  3m east of Carnforth

  Leicestershire

  Bolt Wood

  27

  3

  3m south west of Uppingham

  Clipsham (part)

  14

  14

  8m south west of Bourne

  Lincolnshire

  Hurn Wood

  9

  3

  5m south east of Grantham

  Norfolk

  Foulden Broom Covert

  6

  3

  3m north west of Munford

  Great Wood Outliers

  18

  3

  7m south west of Aysham

  Old Wood, Sheringham

  23

  1

  2m south of Sheringham

  West Rudham

  78

  2

  7m south west of Fakenham

  North Yorkshire

  Seaton Ross Woods

  43

  26

  2m west of Holme on Spalding Moor

  Northamptonshire

  Sandpit Copse

  3

  14

  8m north of Milton Keynes

  Nottinghamshire

  Dilliner Wood

  20

  2

  6m north west of Newark on Trent

  Nut Wood

  9

  14

  6m north west of Newark on Trent

  Shropshire

  Coed Detton

  14

  61

  1m north of Knighton

  Somerset

  Higher Bitcombe

  30

  61

  4m south west of Frome

  South Yorkshire

  Greensprings Wood

  12

  26

  5m south of Barnsley

  Old Park Wood1

  41

  26

  4m south west of Barnsley

  Owston and Duckholt Woods

  66

  4

  4m north of Doncaster

  Suffolk

  Barthorps Folly

  6

  3

  6m south east of Woodbridge

  Warwickshire

  Wappenbury Wood

  74

  2

  3m south of Coventry

  Wiltshire

  Heywood

  20

  1

  lm north of Chippenham

  Southgrove

  39

  1

  7m south east of Marlborough

  773

  Name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Time on market (months)

  Location (m=miles)

  Scotland Borders

  Edgarhope

  143

  9

  1m west of Lauder

  Priesthaugh1

  787

  4

  7m south west of Hawick

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Glaik

  68

  9

  5m west of Stranraer

  Grampian

  Auchinroath Plantation

  62

  8

  1m north of Rothes

  Auqharney (part)1

  133

  14

  8m west of Peterhead

  Elchies Blocks

  103

  3

  In Archiestown

  Glenbuchat

  539

  13

  2m east of Dufftown

  Tulloch Wood1

  239

  5

  2m east of Dufftown

  Highland

  Abriachan Plantation

  865

  14

  1m east of Drumnadrochit

  Ardelve, Arvernish Wood

  26

  30

  5m south east of Kyle of Lochalsh

  Achrugan1

  559

  17

  20m west of Thurso

  Tor Clunes and Castle Spynie

  138

  1

  4m south of Beauly

  Strathclyde

  Ardmarnock1

  1,284

  5

  1m north of Portavadie

  Ardbreaknish

  119

  2

  2m west of Cladish

  Crookedstane

  347

  3

  4m south of Elvanfoot

  Daljarrock

  51

  9

  10m south of Girvan

  Docherneil

  83

  9

  2m north of Pinwherry

  Ford

  57

  2

  12m north of Lochgilphead

  Glenmard

  56

  9

  1m north of Girvan

  Little Clyde

  650

  3

  4m south of Elvanfoot

  Tayside

  Camusericht

  304

  15

  13m west of Kinloch

  Warroch

  68

  5

  5m west of Kinross

  Wales Clwyd

  Blackthorn Covert

  22

  5

  1m south west of Abergele

  Castle Great Wood

  49

  5

  1m west of Ahergele

  Coed Melin y Moch

  12

  15

  3m west of Ruthin

  Crown Wood

  29

  21

  2m west of Holywell

  Dyfed

  Allt Cil y Llyn Fawr

  3

  36

  5m west of Llandovery

  Allt Maestir

  23

  2

  2m north west of Lampeter

  Blaenwaun Wood

  6

  2

  1m north of Lampeter

  Cilflower Wood

  3

  4

  2m south east of Cardigan

  Falcondale Big Wood

  10

  2

  1m north of Lampeter

  Hen Feddau, Ty Hen and Long Wood

  23

  2

  1m north west of Lampeter

  Penhill Wood

  4

  9

  1m south east of Llandovery

  Ty'r Shyme

  6

  4

  6m north of Carmarthen

  Waun Baglan1

  26

  7

  2m south of Kidwelly

  Wern Fach

  4

  36

  3m north east of Lampeter

  Gwent

  Craig yr Arail

  58

  6

  1m north of Abertillery

  Gwynedd

  Aberdunant (part)

  16

  15

  2m north of Portmadog

  Amnodd Wood

  88

  5

  6m east of Trawsfynydd

  Cefn Glas

  12

  5

  6m east of Trawsfynydd

  Cwm Prysor

  56

  5

  5m east of Trawsfynydd

  Factory Covert

  5

  3

  3m north west of Criccieth

  774

  Name of property

  Area (hectares)

  Time on market (months)

  Location (m=miles)

  Gwinllan Rhos Ddu

  10

  3

  3m north west of Criccieth

  Rhiwbach and Tyddyn Bach1

  106

  8

  2m east of Bleinau Ffestiniog

  Ynysfor (part)

  4

  14

  3m north of Portmadog

  Powys

  Dafarneithin Hill

  10

  2

  2m east of Rhayader

  Llandegley Rhos

  37

  2

  3m east of Llandrindod Wells

  Wern Wood

  13

  2

  2m west of Welshpool

  Y Wern1

  453

  2

  3m north east of Ystradgynlais

  Ysfa

  9

  2

  2m south east of Rhayader

  West Glamorgan

  Graig Ynysgollen

  10

  10

  4m north east of Neath

  Nant y Stalwyn1

  44

  27

  1m east of Seven Sisters

  1Woodlands where a legal agreement to protect public access on foot has been concluded. For the other woodlands, either the local authority or a third party with an interest has declined to enter into an access agreement.

  Cairngorms Partnership
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions have taken place between his Department and the chairman of the Cairngorms Partnership relating to the number of individuals on the organisation's board and the levels of remuneration which are currently being made to the members of the board. [9572]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The chairman of the Cairngorms Partnership and my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland discussed the original composition of the board which was set up to reflect the widest possible range of interests in the area. My right hon. Friend determined that the rate of remuneration for the chairman should be assessed by comparison with members of Scottish Natural Heritage. Remuneration of members of the partnership board is similarly by comparison with members of the boards of non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what safeguards his Department has put in place to prevent abuse of the remunerative arrangements pertaining to the board of the Cairngorms Partnership. [9573]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: A framework document has been prepared by officials from the Scottish Office, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Cairngorms Partnership. This sets out the framework for the administrative and financial arrangements of the partnership and includes provision for monitoring of all expenditure incurred by the partnership. This includes ensuring value for money and ensuring that adequate systems are in place to secure propriety and regularity of payments and prudent and economic administration.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct officials of his Department to investigate urgently the current remuneration levels of the board of the Cairngorms Partnership. [9574]
  775
  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: No. The level of remuneration paid to the board is in line with that paid to members of boards of non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the board of the Cairngorms Partnership to be in a position to provide a response to the report of the working party on the future of the Cairngorms; and if he will indicate the timetable stipulated by the Scottish Office at the time the partnership was established governing the publication of the group's response to the report of the working party. [9575]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The Cairngorms Partnership, which became operational in May 1995, was asked to produce a draft management strategy for the Cairngorms area within a year of its establishment. It is expected that a draft strategy document will be published before the end of May 1996.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the conduct of the board of the Cairngorms Partnership with particular reference to the levels of remuneration being paid to board members and the levels of expenditure being incurred in operating the organisation. [9576]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: No such representations have been received.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current membership of the board of the Cairngorms partnership indicating in the case of those individuals currently on local authorities whether they are also now members of the new shadow unitary authorities; and if the membership of the board of the Cairngorms partnership will be reviewed as a result of local government reform. [9577]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. David Laird (chairman)

  Dr. Robert Aitken

  Mr. Stuart Black

  Mr. Richard Cooke

  Mr. Roy Dennis

  Mr. Robert Dunsmore

  Ms Helen Geddes

  Mr. John Grant

  Mr. Stuart Housden

  Mr. Simon Miller

  Dr. Roger Owen

  Mrs. Sheena Slimon

  Mr. Hamish Swan

  Dr. Adam Watson

  Local authorities representatives

  Current local authority

  Elected to new council

  Councillor Mary Levie

  Grampian Regional Council

  —

  Councillor Norman Donald

  Gordon DistrictCouncil

  —

  776

  Local authorities representatives

  Current local authority

  Elected to new council

  Councillor Tom Donoghue

  Kincardine and Deeside District Council

  Aberdeenshire

  Councillor Ian Lawson

  Moray District Council

  —

  Councillor Basil Dunlop

  Highland Regional Council

  Highland

  Councillor Charles Haggerty

  Badenoch and Strathspey District Council

  —

  Councillor Alex Shand

  Tayside Regional Council

  Angus

  Councillor Andrew Thomson

  Angus District Council

  —

  Councillor Alex Murray

  Perth and Kinross District Council

  Perth and Kinross

  The nine local authority representatives serve on the board until 31 March 1996. The partnership will shortly be approaching the new shadow unitary authorities seeking their nominations for representation on the board.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) statutory controls and (b) other safeguards governed the dumping of munitions in Beaufort's dyke during the period since 1966. [9853]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: There were no statutory controls on dumping at sea prior to the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 which was replaced in 1985 by part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act. The dumping of munitions by the Ministry of Defence was governed by appropriate operational procedures.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the scope of the investigations into the dumping of munitions in the Irish channel to include the firth of Clyde and the area of the sea bed around the natural gas pipeline constructed in 1993 from Scotland to the Irish Republic. [9854]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: Details of further survey work in the area will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what investigation his Department commissioned into the washing up of munitions along the south-west coast of Scotland and on the Isle of Man in 1993; and what were the findings. [9868]

  (2) what actions were taken by his Department in 1993 to respond to public concern about the washing up of munitions along the south-west coast of Scotland. [9869]
  777
  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]There was no direct Scottish Office involvement in or investigation of this incident which was dealt with by the emergency services.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations his Department carried out on the condition of munitions dumped at Beaufort's dyke prior to the recent study published by the marine laboratory at Aberdeen; and what studies have been undertaken by other Government Departments into this matter. [9851]
  778
  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The Scottish Office has not carried out any such investigations nor is my right hon. Friend aware of other Government Departments having done so.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions since 1966 the Scottish Office has been made aware of the washing up of munitions along the coast of the south-west of Scotland and the firth of Clyde. [9852]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: No consolidated record of such occurrences is held by the Scottish Office.

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

Universities: Grants Cut
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty'sLord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the figure for the Budget cut in grants to universities, and what assessment have they made of its effect.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Budget settlement for universities confirmed plans for recurrent expenditure announced in the 1994 Budget. However, planned capital funding was reduced by about 40 per cent. compared with previous plans. Universities are being encouraged to use opportunities offered by private finance to maximise the value of taxpayers' money.
The plans allow for institutions to continue to admit over 30 per cent. of young people into higher education and for further increases in participation by part-time students.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I declare an interest as Chancellor of Stafford University. Is the noble Lord aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals was fully justified in describing the capital funding cut as "catastrophic"? That is especially so as the cut will be some 52 per cent. in the next three years and it followed a 25 per cent. cut in funding for students. That is a tremendous cut to the universities. There is no doubt that the effect of the cuts will be damaging to the fabric of British universities. It will impose enormous strains on students and staff and leave Britain trailing behind her competitors. So could we have a complete change in the whole system?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of the views of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. My honourable friend Mr. Forth met members of the committee a week ago, on 11th January. I think that the description of the adjustments to expenditure on universities as "catastrophic" is rather overstating the case. The simple fact is that we spend of the order of £35 billion a year on education in the United Kingdom, some £7.5 billion of which goes on higher education. We now send of the order of 30 per cent. of all 18 year-olds to university compared with 13 per cent. 16 or 17 years ago. That is a record of which we can be proud. It compares well with that of other countries. If noble Lords or the Committee of Vice-Chancellors wish to see yet further expansion in universities, they must say from exactly which budgets they will take the money.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some vice-chancellors feel that they are being presented with two possible courses? The first is to borrow the extra money required to carry on as before—and from my noble friend's original reply, it sounds as though that course may be favoured by the Government, but it some cases it may he difficult or unwise. The second course would be to reduce student numbers. Are the Government happy to see one or other of those courses adopted?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we do not think that it will be necessary for universities to reduce the numbers of students attending them. As I said, we have seen a fairly dramatic increase over the past 15 years to over 30 per cent. of the relevant age group. I repeat, that if anyone feels that the figure should be expanded, they must say where the money will come from. It is obviously open to universities to borrow and many have done so in the past. It is quite right that they should look to that avenue as a possibility and also at the possibility for a private finance initiative.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the Minister say which universities are clamouring to admit more students, now that they know what their budget will be in the next three years? Surely that is absolutely untrue.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that I said anything untrue. What I said was that the numbers of students had increased dramatically over the past few years. It is now of the order of 30 per cent. of that age group. We recognise that there will probably have to be a period of stability over the next few years. I am trying to make clear that if noble Lords, universities or whoever it is, wish to see a much greater expansion in numbers at universities, they must say how it should paid for.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, commendably the Government have increased the number of university students, particularly in the new universities. However, if the amount of money available to deal with them has not been increased, is that not rather foolish?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the amount of money has increased over the years. It has not done so as fast as the number of students because we have sought efficiency gains from universities, as we have from many other sections of society. I am grateful that we have seen efficiency gains produced by the universities. That is part of the reason many universities have been able to take on more students.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will not the cap on student admissions, which was also announced in the Budget, make the Government's participation target of 33 per cent. of school leavers entering higher education by the year 2000 absolutely impossible to attain?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not necessarily believe that to be the case. We have said that we wish to see a period of stability. We have also announced that in due course we shall come forward with a review of higher education. As I made clear, anyone who wants to see

697
yet further dramatic growth in the number of students must carefully consider how it should be paid for. That is one of the reasons we introduced student loans in the past. No doubt it is a reason noble Lords opposite opposed the student loans.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, may I follow that up? The 33 per cent. target is no one's target but the Government's. Let them say where the money will come from.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that was a target that we set for sometime after the year 2000. At the moment we are looking for a period of stability. We are many years away from 2000 at the moment. As we announced, we seek a period of stability in the numbers attending university, and that is quite right.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, on another aspect of the problem, is the Minister aware that in a number of universities where students are dropping out, it is often alleged that it is because of financial difficulties caused by the loans? Will he make inquiries into that? The drop-out rate of students, caused either by that or some other reason, is alarming.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have seen evidence of increased drop-outs but we have seen absolutely no evidence—despite what some will say—that it is caused by financial hardship. It occurs on some occasions. Perhaps for the benefit of the noble Lord and the House I may give a few figures from some BMA research on student expenditure. We find that the average medical student—and I imagine that this is true of most students—spends of the order of £37 a week on accommodation; about £22 a week on food; £3.60 on clothes; £2.70 on text books; £1.10 on equipment; and £18.60 on what is described as "social expenditure". I imagine that that accounts for beer and skittles. I do not believe that that is evidence of hardship.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, vice-chancellors are not given to hyperbole like some politicians; they are reserved in their comments. They are outraged by the cuts and their cumulative effect. The reality is that many of our universities have shabby buildings and over-crowded campuses. This House must decide between the words of the vice- chancellors working at the coal face, as it were, and the Minister trying to placate the Treasury. The reality is that we are failing our universities and we must change the system.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I stick to what I said. I think that there was a degree of exaggeration from the vice-chancellors. They have seen a small cut in capital amounting to £150 million. At the same time, we have increased expenditure on schools by £878 million. I believe that everyone would accept that schools have a slightly higher priority at this time.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is some evidence that "so much more" has meant "quite a lot worse" in the
698
standards of higher education and that therefore the Government must he right to pause and take breath before going any further?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that I necessarily accept my noble friend's supposition that "more" necessarily means "worse".

European Union Membership: Cost to UK
3.10 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total annual cost to public funds of British membership of the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government's most recent estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community Budget is £3.5 billion in the present financial year and £2.9 billion in the coming financial year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that impressive, if somewhat depressing, figure. Does it include the additional £40 million a year that flows from the decision of the Government to accept the ruling of the European Court on the subject of the benefit entitlement of men of 60?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, it does not. My noble friend asked about our contribution to the European budget, and that was the answer I gave. The amount of money he mentioned which we shall have to spend as a result of the ruling of the European Court falls on the health budget in the United Kingdom.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is not answering my question? I did not ask what Britain's contribution was to the European Union; I asked what was the cost of our membership. Surely this particular item falls plumb in the middle of that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend has slightly reinterpreted his Question. I did not interpret it in the way he mentioned. I interpreted him as meaning the contribution to the budget. I suppose one could go on to try to bring out a balance sheet of the costs, and the pluses and minuses of membership. The item my noble friend raises today, which I believe he raised with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on a previous occasion, would I suppose go down as a cost. However, one would have to cite as a plus the considerable amount of inward investment that comes to this country and the jobs that come with it, thanks to our membership of the European Community.
Lord Brooks: My Lords, pursuant to the Question on the Order Paper, what is the gross per capita cost borne by citizens of Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom on an annualised basis?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I should need notice of that particular question. However, I hope

699
I can help the noble Lord in this regard. The major contributor, both in total and per capita, to the Community budget is Germany. The United Kingdom is also a major contributor to the Community but at a good deal lower level than is the Federal Republic of Germany.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the cost of peace, which we now have within the European Union after centuries of war between those countries, is unquantifiable?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing the attention of the House to the broader aspects and importance of our membership of the European Union (the European Community as it was). It is an important bulwark. It helped us very much in our defences through NATO against the Soviet Union in former times. I believe it is a guarantee that the countries of Europe will never again go to war with each other. As my noble friend rightly said, that must be a unquantifiable advantage.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to a budgeted total cost? The Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, related to the total amount out of public funds. The two are not necessarily the same. In addition to the £3½ billion per annum—our net contribution to the budget as referred to by the noble Lord—is the Minister aware that other public funds are expended, notably salaries, expenses and a number of other expenditures on the civil servants and Ministers over here in trying to manage the whole thing from the British standpoint? Does he agree that that must amount to many millions of pounds more per annum than the figures he has already given.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, no matter how many Ministers and civil servants travel to and from Brussels, I do not believe that the cost will in any way come near to the advantages that accrue to the UK, as a major trading nation, as a result of its membership of the most major group of trading countries in the world. I instanced inward investment as only one of the advantages to this country. The UK receives some 41 per cent. of all Japanese inward investment to the European Union. If this country were not a member of the European Union, that inward investment, to Scotland, Sunderland and Tyneside, would not be coming in.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that last year the Swiss franc rose against every other currency including the deutschmark? Can he say what disadvantages are suffered by Switzerland and Norway as a result of their non-membership of the EU?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Switzerland and Norway are not entirely comparable with a country of 55 million people and one that so firmly bases its economic wealth and health on exports. It is quite false to compare this country with Switzerland and Norway. For a start, the relationship that the European Union can have with small countries such as Switzerland and
700
Norway outside it is completely different from the relationship that they would have with a major player like ourselves if we were outside.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a contribution to public funds by taxpayers, for example, who invest in this country? Has any calculation been made of the total annual contribution to public funds from those sources?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, many of these questions are very difficult to quantify. They are likely to be hedged around with so many caveats that I am not sure one would be able to give other than very broad ranges. There is absolutely no doubt that the amount of inward investment that comes to this country and the employment it generates will show through in inward revenue receipts, and therefore in the tax receipts of the Government.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is it not clear that one of the more unfortunate costs of membership of the European Union is the cost of fraud? As noble Lords will he aware, we have recently seen a very considerable increase in the cost of fraud here in the UK. Will the Minister explain why the Government have consistently failed to take up the full allowance of funds provided by the European Union to fight fraud, even though fraud is rising? Will he also explain why the Government are failing to support the European Parliament's proposals to amend the European Union agricultural budget to diminish fraud?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I will not take any lessons from the noble Lord about our determination to bite down on fraud, whether it be in the European Union or in the budget of the Department of Social Security.
The detection of fraud in the Community is left largely to individual countries and the figures therefore have to be viewed with a great deal of care. They can also reflect the care and determination with which an individual country pursues fraud. That is best illustrated by telling the noble Lord and the House that the United Kingdom detects a high number of irregularities, but for very small amounts. In 1994, in its report on fraud, the UK notified 15 per cent. of all common agricultural policy irregularities. But those represented only 3 per cent. by value of all frauds.

The Elgin Marbles
3.18 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is the case that, as reported in the Art Newspaper No. 34 of January 1994, the Foreign Office in the 1960s was in favour of returning the Elgin Marbles to Greece despite opposition by the British Museum and whether they are now prepared to override any objection by the museum authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Lord that Foreign

701
Office officials took the view during the 1960s that there were arguments in favour of returning the Parthenon sculptures to Greece. However, that view was not endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. As now, Her Majesty's Government could not order the British Museum to return the sculptures to Greece. The sculptures are vested in the trustees of the British Museum, who are prevented under their governing statute from disposing of objects in their collections unless they are duplicates or worthless.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that it was contemplated in the Foreign Office at one time that a one-clause Bill should be presented to Parliament which would enable the trustees to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. It was the opposition of the trustees rather than the Government which upset the matter. Can the noble Lord say why the decision to return the Marbles was rescinded? Was it a ministerial decision? If so, how did it come about?
Is the Minister aware also that since 1961 opinion generally in the world, and particularly in the museum world, has been in favour of returning rare objects of art which are of importance to the country of origin? We are now the pariahs of the world because we are unwilling to do so and uncertain about it. Finally, will the Minister take another look at the whole question?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I cannot speak for the exact reasoning of the Government in the early 1960s. However, I can confirm that it is the Government's wish and intention that the sculptures remain in the British Museum. They are the heart of the major museum in this country and part of our national heritage also.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true that if the sculptures had been left in the Parthenon they would no longer exist due to pollution, marauding and everything else that has happened in Greece in the interim? Therefore, in the interests of conservation and evolutionary scholarship—certainly developing scholarship—the British Museum is the best place for them to be maintained.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that the whole world owes a great debt to Lord Elgin for having done what he did with the statues; he has undoubtedly saved them for posterity. I reiterate that it is the Government's intention that they remain where they are.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Elgin Marbles were legally acquired by Lord Elgin and, as the noble Baroness said, would have deteriorated if they had been left where they were? Is he aware also that, if the Government followed the advice of my old and noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and returned all objects acquired from other countries, there would be very little left in our national museums?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for underscoring all the points that the Government consider to be so important.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, despite the Greeks having practically finished
702
the museum at the Parthenon for the Marbles, it would still make a mockery to return them, as it would to return the Giaconda to Italy or the Pergamon to Turkey?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. If one builds a museum in anticipation of displaying objects that belong to somebody else, one does not need a great deal of foresight to see either that that particular part of the museum will remain empty or that it will have to be used for some other purpose.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will have been reassured to be reminded by my noble friend of how robustly, then as now, the Foreign Office defends British interests and assets. However, does the Minister not agree that, were any decision to be taken to return such treasures from any international museum, it would be far better for it to be taken under an international agreement by international arrangement? For example, it could be done through UNESCO; it should certainly not be done through any unilateral gesture.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for underscoring the commitment and role of the Conservative Government over the years to looking after our country's best interests. There has been considerable international debate in respect of the illegal export and acquisition of stolen works of art. I merely draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the scope of the debates at no stage took into account items such as the Parthenon sculptures about which we are concerned today, which were legally exported from their country of origin. The title of the British Museum to the Marbles is unimpeachable.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Donoughue is apparently ignorant of the fact that there is an existing agreement of an international character and that that agreement is being carried out? Countries throughout the world are restoring major objects—only major objects—of interest to their country of origin, and we are opting out of that agreement. We are a bunch of Scrooges and curmudgeons. The Government ought to be interested in our reputation in the world. They are sometimes interested in our reputation and trade for the wrong reasons; why cannot they be interested for the right reasons?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the divisions on the Front Bench on the opposite side of the House.

Transport Research Laboratory: Purchaser
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now in a position to announce the successful bidder for the Transport Research Laboratory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government announced yesterday that the Transport Research Foundation had been selected as the preferred purchaser for the final negotiations on the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory. I regret that the announcement was made in advance of the Question on the Order Paper, particularly in view of the noble Baroness's long-standing commitment to this issue.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I was going to thank the Government spokesman for a generous apology. However, it strikes me as being slightly lame in view of the fact that his argument was that he could not give an answer to my Question today because the Government were giving an answer to the Commons yesterday. It turns out that no such Question was tabled in the Commons yesterday—at least there is nothing on the Order Paper. But I accept that that is another example of the cock-up history of this Government rather than deliberate discourtesy.
I want to go on to congratulate the Government on having at last seen what has been obvious for a long time to everyone else; namely, that the only way to preserve this centre of excellence, the TRL, from the worst effects of privatisation was to allow its staff and management to form a non-profit-distributing company. It was thus able to give the Government, among others, impartial and independent advice. May I express the hope—
Noble Lords: No. Question!
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: May I express the hope? That is a question. I really think some honourable Lords—or whatever they are called—on the Benches opposite should take grammar lessons. That certainly was not a statement, though I am by no means over-confident. May I express the hope—
Noble Lords: Yes!
Baroness Castle of Blackburn:—that that highly welcome and enlightened decision of the Government means that they will now give wholehearted support to the research work of that splendid institution and devote more resources in future to research in general?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have always supported the Transport Research Laboratory. We feel that the right decision was made and that the laboratory has a strong future in the private sector. It will be able to compete on its own terms. We believe that that is the right decision for the laboratory and look forward to a strong future for that institution.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Castle for the relentless campaign she has waged in this matter to see that justice was done? Will he also agree that a lesson to he learnt by the Government from this is, "Don't mess with Barbara"?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have no hesitation whatever in commending the noble Baroness for her long-standing campaign on this issue. She brought the issue to the attention of your Lordships' House on a number of occasions, not least recently in an Unstarred
704
Question. I believe that the lesson to be learnt from all this is that the competitive sale process is the right way to take an institution such as this laboratory into the private sector in order to guarantee it the best possible future.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, al a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on prisoners in hospital.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should point out that the membership proposed differs in one respect from the membership agreed by the Committee of Selection last Thursday. It had nominated the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur—and we are grateful to him for being willing to serve—but, unfortunately, the likely dates proved impossible for him. The noble Lord, Lord Bruntisfield, has kindly agreed to take his place.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection and on behalf of the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Scottish Select Committee on the Bill:

L. Bruntisfield (in place of L. Glenarthur),

E. Buchan,

L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

L. Ewing of Kirkford,

E. Kinnoull,

L. Mackie of Benshie,

L. Pearson of Rannoch,

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

L. Wilson of Tillyorn (Chairman);

That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee shall be printed and, if the Committee thinks fit, delivered out;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday, 31st January at four o'clock in Committee Room 3.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that it is generally understood that the Select Committee will be meeting in Scotland and taking evidence there, can the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees give the House some indication of, first, where the Committee is likely to meet in Scotland; secondly, the likely dates of those meetings; and, thirdly, whether the staff of this House who will be required to service the Select

705
Committee have been consulted and satisfactory arrangements made for their travelling and accommodation, and any extra payments for dislocation agreed?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for having informed me this afternoon before we sat that he was proposing to raise these matters. As regards the meetings of the Committee, after the first one, which it is proposed in the Motion before the House shall take place on 31st January in the Palace of Westminster, it is hoped—although these details have to be finalised by the Committee when it meets, should your Lordships agree to this Motion this afternoon—that it will meet in Edinburgh in the Council Chamber there. It is also hoped that those meetings will take place between 5th and 7th February.
As regards the third question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, yes, indeed, consultations have taken place. There is a Clerk to the Committee, Mr. Edward Wells, already in place awaiting your Lordships' decision this afternoon. Rather than trouble your Lordships with administrative detail now, perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say that it will be open to the noble Lord to consult the Clerk for any further details. I hope that that meets with the noble Lord's acceptance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to. I should mention paragraph 5 on HMSO privatisation, the subject of the next Motion to be moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I should like to make two preliminary points which might be helpful to the House. Both the Finance and Staff subcommittee and the Offices Committee considered the Government's proposals for the privatisation of HMSO. Neither Committee took a view on the merits of the Government's proposals, as it is for your Lordships to express opinions in debate, as always. However, we did draw up stringent safeguards which we consider to be the minimum necessary if satisfactory arrangements are to be made for the future provision of printing and publishing services for Parliament. These are set out in the report as subparagraphs 1 to 4.
My other point is on the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on 13th December, in which she confirmed that the Offices Committee will be invited to consider the detailed arrangements for a contractual relationship between the House and a privatised Stationery Office. This consideration will take place later in the year. The Offices Committee and, through that Committee's report, the whole House, will have the
706
chance to say whether the safeguards we are discussing today have been met by bidders for the Stationery Office business.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to [HL Paper l2].—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
I. Appointment of Sub-Committees
The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committees and Panel—
Finance and Staff Sub-Committee

L. Boston of Faversham (Chairman),

V. Cranborne (L. Privy Seal),

B. Gould of Potternewton,

L. Jenkins of Hillhead,

E. Northesk,

L. Peston,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

L. Richard,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

B. Seccombe,

L. Weatherill,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Administration and Works Sub-Committee

L. Boston of Faversham (Chairman),

E. Gowrie,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. Peston,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn,

B. Serota,

B. Stedman,

L. Strathclyde,

V. Tenby,

L. Weatherill,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
Library and Computers Sub-Committee

L. Avebury,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Freyberg,

L. Holderness,

L. Lewis of Newnham,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lucas,

L. Macaulay of Bragar,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Mustill,

L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Chairman),

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Refreshment Sub-Committee

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

E. Arran,

B. Birk,

L. Chesham,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Lawrence,

L. Mackie of Benshie,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

V. Montgomery of Alamein,

L. Peston (Chairman),

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Advisory Panel on Works of Art

L. Armstrong of Ilminster,

L. Cavendish of Furness,

V. De L' Isle,

L. Donoughue,

E. Gowrie (Chairman),

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Palmer,

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy,

B. Trumpington,

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2. PDVN cabling and other works
The Committee was informed of the programme for cabling for the Parliamentary Data and Video Network. To minimise disturbance and cost, this work is to be synchronised with associated works of automatic fire detection, fire stopping, electrical rewiring, telephone cabling and asbestos removal, and will for Lords' accommodation be completed by 2000 and for the state rooms by 2002. The programme for individual cabling requirements will remain flexible to allow for changes in priorities.
3. Overhaul of roofs over parts of the House of Lords
Following an inspection and survey by the Parliamentary Works Directorate, a project will be undertaken to carry out essential repairs and restoration to some of the House of Lords' roofs. The repairs will begin in summer 1996, with completion by autumn 1998. Disturbance and inconvenience to Lords and staff will be kept to a minimum.
4. HMSO Supply and Service Agreement
The Committee approved a new Supply and Service Agreement between the House of Lords and Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the provision of printing and publishing services.
5. HMSO privatisation
The Committee took note of the Government's intention to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office provided that satisfactory arrangements can be made for the future provision of services to Parliament and agreed that extensive safeguards would be necessary to protect the House's interests. Similar safeguards were being sought by the House of Commons' Commission for that House.
In any arrangements for privatisation, safeguards should be sought to secure the following:
1. Confidence that the business of the House will not be interrupted. This will require:

(a) adequate time for the preparation of one or more tightly drawn contracts;

(b) an assurance that overnight production facilities in inner London are retained for as long as the House continues to need them;

(c) sufficient continuity in the senior management of the relevant sections of the Stationery Office to ensure that the House's needs are understood;

(d) one or more individuals in the privatised Stationery Office who are answerable to the House for the service provided;

(e) alternative emergency arrangements for overnight printing in the event of the failure of contractors.

2. A publication regime which protects the interests of Parliament and does not leave the pricing of its publications to commercial interests. This should include a guarantee that a privatised Stationery Office will not seek any increase (in real terms) in the rates of charges paid by the House or the level of prices to the public above those negotiated for 1996 and that the House will he credited with a proportionate share of future savings arising from technological advances. It would be desirable to achieve a progressive reduction (in real terms) in the cost of Lords papers.
3. A requirement on any prospective purchaser of the Stationery Office to accept the substance of the provisions of the new Supply and Service Agreement between the House and HMSO, including the maintenance of existing service standards and delivery schedules and the rights of the House to regulate the production and reproduction of its documents in both paper and electronic form.
4. The administration of Parliamentary copyright, and the function of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, not to be transferred to the private sector.
The Committee noted that alternative arrangements would have to be made by the House to replace its "intelligent customer" function. now performed by HMSO. This will probably require recruitment of staff by the House, to make good its competence to conduct dealings with the private sector and to commission work.
There should be a debate in the House, for the House to express its opinion on the Government's intentions to privatise HMSO.
6. Lords' reimbursement allowances
The Committee took note of new rates of subsistence and secretarial allowances, following the annual uprating on 1 August in line with the increase in the Retail Price Index:
Overnight subsistence by £2.50 to £74.00
Day subsistence by £1.00 to £33.00
Secretarial costs by £1.00 to £32.00
7. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
The Committee agreed that the current joint funding arrangements with the House of Commons, whereby this House contributes 22% of the running costs of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, should be continued for a further five years from I April 1996.
8. Staff of the House
The Committee approved the extension for two years of the post of additional Temporary Clerk in the Committee Office. The Committee took note of the following:

—that Dr Christopher Kerse had succeeded Mrs Eileen Denza CMG as Second Counsel to the Chairman of Committees and Legal Adviser to the European Communities Committee on 9 October, following Mrs Denza's retirement. The Committee expressed their appreciation for the service which Mrs Denza had rendered the House;

—that Miss Marlene Barrett had been appointed a Temporary Library Clerk until July 1996, in substitution for Dr Victory who is on maternity leave;

— that Mr Norman Adamson CB QC, Assistant Counsel to the Chairman of Committees, had retired on 28 September 1995. The Committee expressed their appreciation for the service which Mr Adamson had rendered the House;

—that Mr Derek Rippengal CB QC and Sir James Nursaw KCB QC had agreed to continue to serve part-time, sharing the work of Counsel to the Chairman of Committees for a further year, ending 30 November 1996.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. On 19th October 1992 the House debated an Offices' Committee report and I drew attention to the fact that two people who had been seconded from English Heritage were now being taken on to the full complement. I did wonder at the time what two full-time people going around this Palace would find to do. I wondered whether in fact the tail would start wagging the dog. I also felt that it was time that somebody pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to two examples of what I meant at that time. The first comes from The Mail on Sunday and the feature article entitled "Black Dog" published last Sunday. One of the paragraphs states,
"My friends in the Commons catering department are wasting money again—but this time it's not their fault. English Heritage has ordered them to remove canvas pavilions on the terrace for six weeks a year because they are not part of the original palace. The annual cost of this gesture? £10,000".

709
I gave the Chairman of Committees notice that I was going to raise this in the fervent hope that he will be able to tell the House this afternoon that this is a lot of nonsense, because if it is not I really do not know how we can look the taxpayer in the face.
The second example I found during the Recess. I come into the House quite a lot during the Recess because of my duties with the BBC and the Docklands Development Corporation. One day I found someone photographing every tile in the Peers' Lobby. I enquired what was going on and I was told, "Some of the tiles are getting worn". I said, "There is a very good reason for that". The question was asked, "What is that?" I said, "They are being walked on". This is a place of work. If we try to turn it into a museum, it is ludicrous. We should make proper allowance for the fact that it has to be used as a workplace.
As regards paragraph 3 of the report entitled "Overhaul of roofs over parts of the House of Lords", I should like to ask, first, how extensive is that work and, secondly, what is going to be the cost of it? The report continues,
"a project will be undertaken to carry out essential repairs and restoration".
Are we really going to have restoration in the sense of restoring the roof to its original condition in places where nobody ever goes and where nobody will ever see it? Can we have some clarification on this?—because again, if that is so, it will be ludicrous.
Lastly, paragraph 3 concludes,
"disturbance and inconvenience to Lords and staff will be kept to a minimum".
We hear that phrase from time to time and it has now assumed just the importance of a punctuation mark because I see very little sign of it. During the Recess, Lift HOP13 was refurbished and finally it was working again. That work was done during the Recess in order not to inconvenience noble Lords more than necessary, but of course, Library staff and others have to go up to that second floor on a regular basis. Perhaps some consideration can be given to them sometimes.
On Monday 25th September, I came into this building early and was delighted to find that the lift was again in service. I made a very happy journey up to the second floor. I had a visitor coming at 11 o'clock and I went to take the lift down. There was a sign across the lift saying, "Lift requisitioned for removals". I went down to the ground floor. It is possible to get there from the second floor despite the enormously expensive staircase, which is now being put in and which is unnecessary. I found on the ground floor that a contractor was loading bricks into the lift. Not only was he loading bricks into the lift, but that was in full view of a very senior officer of the House who was standing two yards away. When I remonstrated about this and pointed out that this was how the lift had become damaged in the first place I was told by the senior officer, "If we do not use the lift, we shall need a scaffolding tower or have to carry the bricks up the stairs".
710
I do not accept that at all because that lift was ruined not so long ago by the people installing the air conditioning in the upper corridor of the Commons using it for materials and gear. When I was told that there was no alternative at that time to using the lift I made an expedition down the other end and I found a very much more substantial lift which could have been used if heavy articles had to be carried. But also it is the easiest thing in the world to sling a boom and a block and tackle out and the stuff could have been hoisted up without damage to anything. I am very unhappy about this because if contractors are told not to use these lifts and they disobey the instructions they should be dismissed, and we should make sure that they do not get work in the Palace again.
Finally, about this lift—if I seem obsessional to your Lordships it is because I am obsessional about it—when I inquired I was told by the director of works that there would be a complete refurbishment this summer and that it would include facilities for disabled people. Yesterday I tried to get a wheelchair into this lift. It is possible to get a wheelchair into the lift only if it goes in absolutely straight and then there is no clearance at all on either side. So someone who has to propel himself in a wheelchair by his own effort cannot possibly use the lift. How it has been adapted for the disabled, I do not understand. We now have a voice which tells us which floor we are arriving at, supposing it is working, so that may be helpful to someone who is blind. But if that is the only change that has been made, then it is sick.
I really do think that we are failing in our duty if we let reports like this go through on the nod when we know of abuses like this which have occurred.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for having informed me beforehand of the first matter to which he referred. I have to confess that I am always in some difficulty in your Lordships' House in dealing with matters which do not arise from a particular report. If I were to seek to assist one noble Lord, I would perhaps be in danger of offending all other noble Lords. However, with your Lordships' permission, I am prepared to make an exception in this case because it is a matter which has reached the public view and therefore it would perhaps be appropriate to use this opportunity to say something about it.
I am aware of and have seen the article in the Mail on Sunday to which the noble Lord referred. I know, too, that the Parliamentary Works Directorate made calculations two years ago to establish whether it would be more economic to put a permanent structure here or to erect and then take down at the end, as it were, of the useful season the terrace awnings. Perhaps to some noble Lords somewhat paradoxically, it is the case that it would be more expensive—indeed substantially more expensive: around one-third to two-thirds more expensive—to have a permanent structure than to have the structure put up and taken down each year. Furthermore, I would venture to suggest—I think this view is shared by the committee as well—that it would be very unlikely indeed, even if it were to be desired, that permission would be given for the creation of a

711
permanent structure. I do not have to hand separate figures for the cost of dismantling and re-erecting the awnings, but I have given some indication of the difference in the costs which would be likely to arise.
The noble Lord referred to photographs being taken of the tiles in the Peers' Lobby. I am not able to help him about that. However, I would only share his view that this place is not a museum. It is very much a working place. As we know from the duties which noble Lords perform in your Lordships' House, if I may speak on your Lordships' behalf for this end of the Palace of Westminster at any rate, it is very much a place of work and service to Parliament and the nation.
The noble Lord asked about the roofs. Yes, indeed, it is an extensive operation but it has to be done. I would not wish to take—I am sure no noble Lord would expect me to take—any undue risks which might affect your Lordships. It is essential that this workplace, reverting to the previous point, should be adequately maintained.
I take the noble Lord's point about avoiding disturbance. Although there was disturbance from time to time in the course of the very extensive operations carried out during the last Summer Recess—the largest the Palace has so far ever seen—that work was, if I may give a personal view, very successfully carried out on schedule. Very determined measures were taken, which I think were largely successful, to keep the promise we gave to keep disturbance to a minimum. I cannot pretend that there will be no disturbance when extensive restoration work is carried out in your Lordships' House and in the Palace generally, but on the basis of our past experience, I can say, I hope with some confidence, that the disturbance will be kept to a minimum. If any of your Lordships has reason to require additional steps to be taken, they will certainly be sympathetically considered by those concerned.
I shall have to let the noble Lord know outside the Chamber on the lift point because, again, I do not have any details about that to hand. But if there is any useful information I can pass on to him, I shall of course do so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, would he care to comment on sub-paragraph 4 of paragraph 5? It states:
"The administration of Parliamentary copyright, and the function of Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament, not to be transferred to the private sector".
Would he care to comment on that, or would he prefer to leave it to the next item?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps it would be best if I were to leave the noble Lord's point to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who will be dealing with these matters generally.
As a point has been raised on the debate which is to follow, perhaps I may add to what I have already said on this point. A welcome and encouraging consensus emerged at the meeting of the Offices Committee on the safeguards which are sought for preserving and protecting the service of HMSO to Parliament. The tone was set in the first intervention—I am sure the committee would allow me to say this—in our debate
712
on that matter by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, followed and supported by the other leaders and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. That is encouraging. I would also add this personal point about welcoming that and finding it encouraging. It is this. Although your Lordships would not expect me to venture anything on the merits or otherwise of the privatisation proposals, I found it welcome and encouraging that the second half of the Motion to be moved this afternoon by the noble Viscount contains words about safeguards. I felt that that was an excellent part of the Motion to be moved this afternoon.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HMSO: Privatisation
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As anyone with a working knowledge of Parliament will recognise, Her Majesty's Stationery Office has a long and illustrious history. I believe I am right in saying that it is one of the oldest government departments still in existence, since it was established over 200 years ago. The Stationery Office has diversified and grown since then. It has acted as a printer to Parliament for more than 100 years and has established a reputation for providing a service of the highest quality and efficiency.
It has also a long-standing responsibility for legislative printing and the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is customarily appointed Queen's Printer of Acts of Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out a moment ago, the Stationery Office also administers Crown copyright and, by agreement with this House and another place, parliamentary copyright too. With my noble friend's permission, I shall return shortly to the matter of Crown copyright. In all those areas, the Stationery Office has demonstrated and indeed enhanced its reputation for quality and reliability, which are now known way across the public sector and beyond.
Of course, if government is to be effective, the functions that I have just described are essential. But equally, they account for only a small proportion of the Stationery Office's business. Financially, it has always had to rely more on the mundane business of supplying stationery, printing services and so forth. In those areas it has consistently been guided by its founding principle of minimising the cost to government and therefore to the taxpayer, while maintaining the standards that its customers expect. The same principle has guided this Government's policy toward the Stationery Office and, I venture to suggest, must clearly be paramount in any decision on its future.
That was why, in 1982, the Government allowed the Stationery Office's customers to use other suppliers. Until then its business had been guaranteed and was paid for by an annual Vote rather than by the customers themselves. After customers were untied from the

713
Stationery Office, the private sector was quick to enter what had been a closed central government market. As a result, the Stationery Office found itself responding to competition with improvements in quality and price. Indeed, it is worth pointing out to your Lordships that there has been no increase in the cover price of parliamentary papers since 1991 and the price of Hansard has indeed been reduced. That is very good news for customers, who have benefited from great choice and lower costs, as well as being good news for the taxpayer.
The new regime faced the Stationery Office with quite a challenge. It found itself competing with suppliers well used to the rigours of the market place and who were not subject to the Stationery Office's public sector restraints. Nevertheless, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the staff responded remarkably. They improved efficiency and, indeed, the Stationery Office has doubled the number of transactions that it handles since 1980, while staff numbers have roughly halved. However, it still has to carry the incubus that any government-owned commercial enterprise must carry. It is still subject to public expenditure constraints and so cannot contemplate taking decisions which enable a private sector enterprise to grow and adapt. It cannot raise investment capital without appealing to the Treasury and cannot readily diversify its operations. Most importantly perhaps, it cannot generally trade with the private sector, despite the fact that its own central government market is diminishing.
I believe that those restrictions are certain to damage the Stationery Office's prosperity. Indeed, those restrictions have to some extent already done so. The turnover has fallen by some 10 per cent. since 1990. So, if we take no action now, the future will be bleak and staff numbers will continue to fall. That would be a grave disservice to the staff at the Stationery Office who have built the organisation's formidable reputation and now see their own future in jeopardy. Removing the incubus of government ownership will give the Stationery Office the chance to expand, to compete fully and, if it needs to, to diversify.
That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced in another place last month that the Government intended to privatise the Stationery Office by competitive tender offer by the summer of this year. However, I believe that there will be other advantages flowing from that decision. The office's customers, and by extension the taxpayer, will benefit from greater efficiency and at the same time working in a well-found and prosperous business will offer more real security to the staff. The Government are, therefore, convinced that failure to take action will leave the business in a half-way house, which will harm the long-term interests of the business, its staff, its customers and the taxpayer.
Some have suggested that the Stationery Office should remain within government ownership but that the restrictions on its operation should be relaxed. I cannot help feeling that that is a suggestion without any serious merit. The history of the past 16 years has shown that
714
commercial enterprises in the public sector, which allegedly enjoy the unfair competitive advantages of being underwritten by the taxpayer, with access to cheap borrowing from the National Loans Fund and so forth, do not provide the advantages to their customers and their staff that firms in the private sector provide. In fact, those alleged advantages lead to rather the reverse, to sclerosis for the enterprise and higher taxes for the public.
On the other hand, we must recognise that any change such as the one that is contemplated must he a thoroughly unsettling process for the staff themselves. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has therefore already given an assurance that TUPE will apply at the point of sale to preserve all terms and conditions of employment. The day-to-day relationship between employer and employee will be maintained after privatisation. We shall maintain contact with staff representatives at the Stationery Office and keep employee interests firmly in mind as the sale proceeds.
As a member of the Government, I am concerned that we should make the right arrangements to ensure the future success of Her Majesty's Stationery Office as a business. I hope that I have already made that clear this afternoon. As Leader of your Lordships' House, my object above all must be to ensure that the House is provided with at least as good a service as that which we have received from the Stationery Office while it remained in the public sector. I also share the desire that has been expressed in all parts of your Lordships' House, most notably and recently by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that the price of Hansard should not be a barrier to public access to records of our proceedings and indeed the proceedings of another place.
Therefore, it is important for me to emphasise that operationally the day-to-day relationships between the House and the Stationery Office need not change significantly. The House already enjoys a broadly commercial relationship with the Stationery Office and the supply and service agreement which came into force at the start of the year will, I believe, provide a sound basis for agreeing a full contract with legal force.
The Government note the future requirements stipulated by the Offices Committee of this House and indeed by Madam Speaker in another place. We are confident that those requirements can be incorporated in the contracts between each House of Parliament and the new business. Those contracts could quite properly provide for the service to be given from the same premises and by the same staff as at present; for named officers of the privatised business to be accountable for its performance; and for emergency arrangements to be maintained. In short, current arrangements between the Stationery Office and this House could continue unchanged after privatisation if the contract is drawn up to that effect.
Officials of the House are already closely involved in planning for the change and have at the forefront of their minds the safeguarding of the interests of the House. Your Lordships will rightly wish to be kept informed of

715
progress, and it may well be that it is in the mind of the Offices Committee to receive a report on the progress which is being made towards meeting the requirements which it has already set out. Indeed, the Offices Committee may feel that contact with Ministers would help it to safeguard the interests of the House. I am pleased to be able to say that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has indicated to me that if the Offices Committee so wished, he would be willing to be examined by it at its convenience.
Of course, it would be for the Offices Committee, and ultimately for your Lordships' House, to judge whether the necessary safeguards were in place to meet your Lordships' requirements for printing and publishing services. I would not in any way wish to interfere with that—and even if I did wish to do so, your Lordships would deal shortly and effectively with me.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on the question of timing. I have said that the Government aim to privatise the Stationery Office by the summer of this year. Based on previous experience, that will allow enough time, we believe, for us to advertise the sale, to identify prospective bidders, to invite them to make indicative bids and then to chose a shortlist of those to be invited to make the final bids. As always, there is a lot to he done in the time, but we must balance the need for thorough preparation with the need to reduce uncertainty, which, as your Lordships will know, is highly debilitating. I venture to suggest that the position of the House would be strongest if we were able to identify quickly our preferred position in respect of the details of the contract into which we want to enter. We would then be providing bidders with what I suspect would be substantially a non-negotiable requirement.
Some have suggested that we should retain in the public sector not only the small residual body concerned primarily with the administration of Crown copyright—I believe that that is what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to, and we shall, indeed, retain that—but also that those parts of the Stationery Office which supply the House with its services should be retained as well. That is perhaps superficially an attractive idea, but closer examination leads me to the inescapable conclusion that in the end that simply will not wash.
The principal services provided by HMSO for Parliament are publishing, urgent production and delivery, sales and customer services to buyers of parliamentary publications, innovation and development and close liaison with Parliament's Officers. Under the current integrated arrangements, this work is both profitable and, as the Americans say, prestigious. It offers potential purchasers of the business the possibility of increasing their use of the existing production capacity through expansion into new markets. I would therefore expect privatisation to lead to a downward pressure on costs as they are spread more widely.
If, on the other hand, we were to retain the parliamentary business in the public sector, we would quickly see its costs rising. It would no longer benefit from economies arising from a shared infrastructure. It would not he well positioned to win other business to
716
fill its spare capacity. The lower prices which we have recently achieved for parliamentary publications would he increased, while potential further price reductions, which could be in prospect as a result of the increased competitiveness of the Stationery Office in the private sector, would vanish.
The Government will seek a buyer who will maintain the independence and integrity of the present Stationery Office. Under no circumstances will we offer the printing and publishing businesses separately, and we shall maintain the provision to Parliament and other customers of an integrated service. We will publish the shortlist of buyers in due course, and I repeat that we shall continue to discuss with the authorities in this House and in another place the nature of Parliament's needs and how they can best be met.
As I have said, I believe that sale to the private sector is the only realistic course which safeguards the interests not only of this House and the Stationery Office, hut also its staff, its customers and the taxpayer. Without it, decline looks horribly inevitable. I therefore commend the Government's plans to the House.
Moved, that this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's plans for the future of HMSO, including safeguards proposed to meet Parliament's requirements for printing and publishing services.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
4.4 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful that the House is having a debate on this matter today. As your Lordships will remember, when the Government made a Statement on this some time before Christmas there seemed to be a general feeling that we should have an opportunity to look at this matter in greater detail. I am glad that we are now doing so.
I listened to the noble Lord the Leader of the House with interest and attention, as I always do, but I am bound to say that I found his speech strong on allegation but a bit short on evidence. It is all very well for the Government to say, "We think that this is what ought to happen", but at some stage I think that they have to produce evidence to show why it should happen.
There are, I think, four points that the House should consider this afternoon. First and pre-eminently, have the Government established a case for this privatisation? Secondly and associated with the first point, what are the alternatives? Thirdly, what are Parliament's interests and requirements? Fourthly—this is indeed important—who is to decide? What are they to decide? When are they to decide it, and how are they to decide it?
As I have said, the first two points are connected and I shall try to deal with them together. It is for the Government to establish the need for a change of the magnitude which is proposed. On the face of it, Her Majesty's Stationery Office is doing a good job, competing effectively and providing a first-class service. Indeed, it is that very competence and efficiency which would prove attractive to the private sector, but it is no response for the Government merely to say, "We think that it should he privatised". They have to estahlish

717
some substantial arguments to justify that statement otherwise it is a policy based solely on dogma and I had hoped that the political argument nationally had moved beyond that.
In answer to the question, "Who wants this privatisation?", it is difficult to find anyone who wants it, except Ministers. The staff voted on it and 95 per cent. were against it. The management, judging from some minutes I have seen recently, is acquiescent but hardly enthusiastic. There is no great upsurge of demand for change in the status of HMSO from within the organisation itself. I do not detect any great cries of "Freedom now" from the workers as they march through Norwich behind banners proclaiming, "Free us from the shackles of Government". That does not seem to be the approach of those most connected with the Stationery Office itself. Therefore, as far as I can ascertain, I repeat that there is no demand for any change in the status of HMSO either from within the organisation or from its customers.
If that is so, perhaps we should look elsewhere for the reason why. Is it to be found in the trading and financial position in which HMSO now finds itself? Are there any reasons there why this proposal suddenly becomes desirable? I think not. Through the Cabinet Office, the Government published an information pack on 30th November last year. The present position of HMSO was described as follows—these are not my words but are, I repeat, taken from the information pack which comes from the Government and the Cabinet Office:
"HMSO's staff has responded well to the new challenges and opportunities"
this is since 1980—
"and the business was refocused, resulting in an increase in sales and costs being driven down".
That is exactly what the Government are demanding that the whole of the rest of British industry should do.
The information pack continued:
"The experience of Trading Fund operation made HMSO a prime candidate for Executive Agency status under the Government's 'Next Steps' initiative, and this was achieved on 14 December 1988".
Again, the following are not my words, but come from the information pack which describes the present state of HMSO:
"A number of business developments took place during the period 1989 to 1993 including:
improved productivity through the introduction of a new pay and grading system with performance pay linked to key targets".
All the buzz words are there, words so beloved of the market-oriented Government opposite.
The quotation continues:
"improved motivation and flexibility through organisational restructuring to devolve responsibility and flatten the management structure".
I gather that flattening the management structure is considered a desirable thing—at least, that seems to be what is advocated in this document. And:
"and the introduction of business driven flexible working hours".
718
All that, HMSO has done. It goes on to tell me that there has been an:
"optimisation of business procedures by the introduction of Total Quality Management. HMSO"—
your Lordships will be glad to hear—
"will be ready for company-wide registration under ISO 9000 in 1996. Most business units within HMSO have already achieved accreditation".
I do not understand a word of that, but I am sure, due to the fact that it is presented so clearly with such a clarion cry of triumph in the memorandum, that it is obviously something that is thoroughly desirable, and which we should praise HMSO for having achieved.
What is more important, what HMSO has achieved—I quote from the document—is:
"reductions in overhead costs and lead times, by the simplification of critical business processes; a new focus on customer care to maintain customer loyalty; and the introduction of a pioneering public sector electronic trading system".
I have had a little fun with the memorandum so far, but I urge your Lordships to listen to the next paragraph because, in a sense, it is the starting point for the argument we are having today:
"Over the past 15 years HMSO's turnover has risen from £260 million per annum to over £375 million per annum. Over the same period staff numbers have been reduced from 6,300 to 2,900, with the result that sales per head have increased from £41,000 to £121,000. Since 1980 HMSO has met or exceeded the financial targets set by Treasury Ministers in all but 1991 and 1994 when it fell marginally short due to exceptional redundancy costs".
That is the verdict on HMSO in the memorandum pack produced by the Cabinet Office.
If one were looking for as good an account of a public sector success story as anyone could find, this would seem to be it. HMSO is highly regarded by its customers and suppliers and it has, by and large, met, or exceeded, the financial targets set by Treasury Ministers (even of this Government). It has developed considerable expertise in a number of areas in its 200 years of operation, resulting in a highly competitive business which functions well and in respect of which there seems to be universal approval. It is, in short, a very good record of an efficient public service, which inevitably invites the question: why on earth change it?
The argument put by the Government, and repeated again this afternoon by the Leader of the House, is that it is necessary to privatise HMSO because it faces an influx of competition from the private sector in the future—competition which, so far as I can see, up to now it has met successfully—and that in those circumstances there is a risk—it cannot be put higher than that—that the business will decline unless it can widen its markets. The memorandum from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Finance and Services Committee of the other place then concludes—baldly, if I may say so, and with no supporting argument:
"privatisation will therefore"—
I invite your Lordships to note the word "therefore"—
"offer the best chance of a healthy and dynamic future for HMSO and its staff".

719
Where is the evidence for that? Certainly none is provided. The argument is not that HMSO faces those problems now, but that it might in the future. It is supposition that that will occur, and it is even greater supposition, built upon supposition, that the only way in which that can be dealt with is by privatisation, which will offer the best chance of a future for HMSO and its staff.
If it he thought that no public service can he unshackled because of its public nature—the noble Viscount repeated that again this afternoon—I would like to refer to what has been happening in the Post Office. When it became clear that privatisation of the Post Office was unpopular both in Parliament and with the general public, the Government then fell back upon arrangements which allowed the Post Office to compete more openly with the private sector and to seek new markets—exactly what they say they cannot do in respect of HMSO. If it is necessary, and I am not convinced at the moment that it is, why cannot the Government follow the Post Office's example?
I have to conclude therefore that the case for this privatisation is quite simply not made out. HMSO is in a unique position because of its parliamentary work. It is essential to the working of Parliament that there should be a flow of parliamentary documents and Hansard which is at least as efficient as that which takes place now.
As the House will know—it has been referred to already this afternoon—this has been a matter of some discussion both here and in the other place. Madam Speaker wrote to the Lord President of the Council setting out a number of safeguards and guarantees which, in the view of the other place, it will be necessary to receive before it can decide whether satisfactory arrangements have been made for the future provision of services to Parliament. The Offices Committee of this House has also considered the matter, and its views are set out in the report which has already been referred to this afternoon. It is important for the proper function of Parliament that those safeguards are provided and that those undertakings are given and can be trusted. Otherwise I would anticipate that the House would not he prepared to sanction the proposal.
Perhaps I may make one slightly peripheral point. I note that when Mr. Freeman gave evidence to the Finance and Services Committee of the other place in November he gave an assurance that he would supply to the Committee Clerk not merely the information pack but the information memorandum. However, in a letter to my noble friend Lord Dubs, dated 4th January this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said:
"It is normal practice that this document is restricted to serious bidders and then only after they have signed a wide-reaching confidentiality agreement".
I have to make the basic point that I assume that the treatment of this House will be similar to the treatment of the other place. If the Select Committee of another place is to see that information memorandum—Mr. Freeman gave that firm assurance (he gave it twice actually)—then it must be right that the Offices
720
Committee here should see it too. I should be grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will give that assurance when he replies to the debate.
My last point is on the decision-making process. It must be right that Parliament should be consulted fully as to whether or not it approves of this type of legislation. Mr. Freeman has assured the other place that it will be involved with the decision as to who will he the eventual purchaser. Again, I assume that that will apply to this House too. We need to be clear about this aspect of the matter. Since the Government tell us that there is no need for primary legislation to proceed with this privatisation, how do the Government envisage that Parliament's approval should be given?
I assume that there will have to be a full debate on a Government Motion to approve, which, by its very nature, would be debatable, and upon which there could be a vote. Perhaps I may say quite clearly to the Leader of the House that we for our part do not regard today's proceedings as being in any way the definitive debate on this proposal. We are today discussing some of the principles behind the proposed sale; we are in no way giving our approval to the sale itself. I hope that the Government will confirm that also.
Finally, perhaps I may say that the more I look at this matter, the more I have come to regard the whole affair as a piece of dogmatic nonsense. HMSO is doing well. All the evidence proves that. It should be left alone to carry on providing the quality of service that Parliament and the country have come to expect.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, in the course of preparation for the debate I studied with even more care than I normally bestow upon that publication, Hansard for 13th December of this House and for 18th December of the other place. Hansard is of course a publication fairly central to the debate, but nonetheless it was those particular exchanges to which I paid attention.
Studying both of them left two strong impressions in my mind. First, in your Lordships' House I have never heard the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—she was here a moment ago, and I wish that she were here now—less certain of herself. She is normally well briefed, lucid, and full of self certainty—indeed to an extent that she always hints that anyone who disagrees with her is guilty of some sort of delinquency. On 13th December she was extremely hesitant. Indeed, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House was very emollient and low-key today.
I turn to the other place. Apart from the fact that the Government appeared to have no support from the Conservative Back-Benchers who spoke, with I believe one exception, one was struck by the fact that the Chancellor of the Duchy, the Minister primarily responsible, was trying to ride two manifestly incompatible horses. His first proposition was that if the Stationery Office were to be saved from a dismal future of inevitable decline, it had to be set free from all trammels of government. It had to be a free-ranging beast of the free-market forest. Immediately afterwards

721
there were great assurances that, because it would continue to perform its parliamentary functions in an exemplary way, the nature of the contract would have to maintain the most rigid control over how the company performed in the future. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the two Houses of Parliament would be entitled to lay down the location of the press, the staff and the way in which the business was structured and organised. There is such a manifest contradiction between those two propositions as to make it one of the most nonsensical arguments that one can imagine.
What supporting arguments were put forward? The first was that the unsatisfactory nature, so it was alleged, of the present regime was supported by the fact that the workforce had declined from 3,400 to 2,900 during the past five years. I wonder whether any Member of the Government or anyone opposite would like to guarantee that under privatisation the reduction in the workforce would be no more than 7 per cent. over the next five years. If any previous privatisation is any guide, what with so-called rationalisation (the hiving off of less profitable parts) the decline in the workforce is much more likely to be of the order of 30 or 40 per cent. than it is to be of the order of 7 per cent.
It was then suggested—and again it was a contradictory argument—that since the commercial considerations have been made more and more to apply to HMSO, beginning in 1980 and reinforced in 1988, the new considerations have been "good news"—a phrase which the noble Viscount repeated today—for the consumer. If one looks back it appears that the main good news for the consumer between 1980 and 1991 was the phenomenal rise in the price of Hansard from 45 pence to £7.50. That does not seem to be a good deal for the consumer during that period. Such a patchwork of contradictory and unconvincing arguments can stem only from a decision which is irrational at its core. The privatisation of HMSO is a twitch on a dying dogma. It is analogous to the supremely irrelevant measures of nationalisation which it was tried to force through in 1975 and 1976, with the IMF at the door and sterling in a very weak position indeed.
The best counter argument from the Government side, which we heard in the Commons debate more than we have heard here today, was that both Oppositions have always been very sceptical of any of the measures of privatisation, even those that have turned out to be successful. As a general argument, perhaps that has a certain force, but it is a profoundly unpragmatic argument. To say that, because a dose of some medicine may in certain circumstances do considerable good, limitless quantities in quite different circumstances must, as a matter of faith, be desirable is certainly a profoundly unpragmatic and ought to be a profoundly "unConservative" point of view. It is not one with which I would have associated traditional Conservative thought.
Nor would I have associated that with the modern development of a growing lack of respect for the state and a desire to strip it of its proper appurtenances. I blinked in amazement at last week's statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that the very existence
722
of the state is a potential threat to all the moral, cultural, social and economic benefits of freedom. When combined with her claim made in days of greater affluence—no, influence not affluence: the two do not necessarily go together, fortunately—that there is no such thing as society, it does not leave humanity with much prospect other than being a mass of inchoate protoplasms.
If those are the doctrines to be propitiated—and the relentless desire to strip the national state of its necessary services (and, perhaps I may say in parenthesis, its best buildings) suggests that this is so—our whole political and civic tradition is at risk. It is far more at risk from the nihilist Right than there is any question of it being at risk from Brussels.
It also leaves the noble Viscount, who in such a distinguished way carries on the Cecil tradition in this House, in a somewhat anomalous position. If there is one word that I would associate with the traditions of his family—certainly from the time of the first Elizabeth to the end of Queen Victoria's reign—it is "statecraft". However, one cannot have much statecraft without a state and one cannot have an effective state without leaving it some sinews of operation, such as a printing agency and even buildings, which are an expression of its tradition and authority, such as Greenwich and even Admiralty Arch.
At a more local level, it is not a pretty sight to go to almost any market town in England and to see in the centre a post office, mostly purpose-built 60 or 70 years ago in a not exciting but in a decent neo-Georgian style, boarded up and the business pushed into some newsagent in a back street. That would not happen in centralised France and it would not happen in decentralised America either because of the different manifestations of national pride in both cases. But it happens here and it shows the limitation of allowing a bottom-line approach to take over not only in areas where that is suitable but in areas where it is not.
Perhaps I may take another paradoxic example which for me is one fairly close to home. I sometimes thank God that the National Trust is an independent body operating under strict rules about the inalienability of its properties rather than under the direct ownership of this Government. If it had been a sitting target for taxation reductions, the immunity of the sale of its houses and coastline would be far less than it is at present.
I return to HMSO, which I have to keep reminding myself is not a ship. I make no apology for having put the foolishness which is proposed in the context of general thought and behaviour. The consolations that are offered are: first, that some control by both Houses of Parliament will remain over who will be the first purchaser; and, secondly, that if we do not like the parliamentary service provided, we can take away our business and place it elsewhere. But what happens when the first purchaser becomes the second purchaser and is taken over, hived off or goes out of business?
If this privatisation had taken place five or perhaps even seven years ago, by far the most likely purchaser would have been the Maxwell empire. That would have provided an interesting future for HMSO, but would

723
there have been any guarantees for us? What is the value of the opportunity to change when, the specialised services of HMSO having gone, there is no one suitable to switch back to? That would be a foolish and dogmatic scheme at the best of times. In present circumstances, with a tottering Government enjoying minimal support in the country and endeavouring desperately to fend off an election for as long as possible, it is sacrilege to destroy an institution with a 200 year-old tradition of successful public service. To paraphrase the words of Chesterton's immortal satire of an extravagance of Lord Birkenhead, I say, "Chuck it, Cecil".

Prisoners in Hospital
4.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on prisoners in hospital which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the use of restraints on prisoners attending hospital, particularly women who are pregnant.
"The acting Director General of the Prison Service, Richard Tilt, met Caroline Flint, the President of the Royal College of Midwives, on Monday to discuss the use of physical restraints on women prisoners admitted to hospital to give birth. The discussions were constructive and I am very grateful to the Royal College for its help. I should like to make it clear that it has never been the intention of the Prison Service to apply handcuffs or chains to women who are confirmed as being in labour and never to apply restraints contrary to medical advice. That will continue to be the case. But the Royal College has asked for certain modifications to be made to the use of restraints on pregnant women and the Prison Service has accepted its recommendations.
"In future, women taken from prison to hospital to give birth will normally be escorted by two female members of prison staff. In exceptional circumstances, where this is operationally not practicable, at least one will be female. No restraints will be applied to the prisoner from the time at which she arrives at the hospital. No prison staff will be present in the delivery room unless the prisoner requests it. Governors will continue to be encouraged to liaise with hospital managers and midwives on these and all other security measures for women admitted to hospital to give birth.
"The Royal College of Midwives has also expressed concern about the application of physical restraints to pregnant women waiting in public areas in hospitals for antenatal checks. In future, all physical restraints will be removed from a prisoner on her arrival in a hospital waiting room unless she is judged to present a particularly high risk of escape and of course there is no medical objection to restraints being applied.
724
"The Prison Service has a responsibility to balance the need to hold prisoners securely with the duty to treat them with humanity and to maintain their dignity and privacy. The modifications I have announced will, I believe, allow the Prison Service to strike a reasonable balance on behalf of the public. We arc confident that this revised policy provides the correct balance without reducing security to unacceptable levels.
"The Prison Service has also taken this opportunity to review its policy of applying physical restraints to other prisoners. Following a thorough risk assessment, some prisoners already attend hospital appointments without an escort under the temporary licence scheme. This will continue to apply. When a prisoner is escorted to hospital, physical restraints will continue to be used in most cases unless there is a medical objection. But where, following a rigorous risk assessment, the governor comes to the conclusion that restraints are unnecessary, they will no longer be used. In such cases, the prisoner will, however, still be accompanied and supervised by Prison Service staff. This builds on the experience of the Prison Service in using risk assessments under the temporary licence arrangements introduced with great success last year.
"Let me summarise the new arrangements. First, no woman who goes into hospital to give birth will be restrained from the time she arrives at the hospital until she leaves. Secondly, a pregnant woman who goes to hospital for antenatal checks will have her restraints removed on arrival in the waiting room unless there is a particularly high risk of escape. Thirdly, in most other cases physical restraints will continue to be applied. But governors retain the discretion to release prisoners on temporary licence or to send them to hospital under the supervision of staff but without restraints being applied. I am confident that these revised arrangements will strike a better balance between the various considerations which the Prison Service has to take into account.
"The acting Director General of the Prison Service is writing to governors with details of the new arrangements. He will keep these arrangements under review and will monitor their operation."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is tempting to say simply that this is a climb-down, indeed a humiliating climb-down, to thank the Minister for the concessions that have been made and to sit down. But I am afraid that my responsibilities go wider than that and I cannot take that easy course.
Of course, this Statement is welcome in so far as it meets the requirements of the Royal College of Midwives and follows the meeting between the acting Director of the Prison Service and Caroline Flint of the Royal College. We are grateful for the recognition that the Royal College was right in its protests and has been so for a number of months.

725
But we cannot allow this climb-down to pass without saying also that the policies which have now been abandoned were introduced deliberately by the Prison Service under the aegis of this Government no longer ago than April 1995. They were introduced presumably because of a panic reaction to the escapes from Parkhurst and Whitemoor which led to the setting up of the Learmont inquiry.
We cannot avoid noting that when the Learmont Report finally appeared it had references in paragraphs 5.38 to 5.40 to the position of women prisoners. But there is no suggestion that any of those physical restraints on women prisoners outside prison are a necessary addition to security or, indeed, that they are justified. Therefore, the action of the Government and the Prison Service in response to those escapes—all, of course, by men—was entirely unjustified and is shown to be unjustified by the inquiry which the Government themselves established.
Having introduced those new rules, which are very precise and rigid, the Prison Service then proceeded to ignore a number of warnings over a period of months that they were intolerable and inhumane. The Royal College of Midwives protested against the rules in July 1995. The particular example which has given rise to this change was the treatment of women prisoners from Holloway in Whittington. The Whittington Hospital wrote to the Prison Service in August 1995 making it clear that there were serious concerns among hospital staff and particularly among the midwifery staff, asking for talks about it and offering a community midwifery service within the walls of Holloway Prison.
So far as I know, no adequate response was given to those requests and the matter was allowed to continue with this inhumane treatment being applied right up until the present time, despite the fact that my noble friend Lady Hayman wrote to the Minister of State in December 1995 asking for a meeting and expressing her concern about the views of her staff regarding the conditions under which such pregnant women and women in labour were being treated.
At the very least, there ought to be an apology to the women and, indeed, to the hospital staff concerned for the way in which the women have been treated and also the way in which the hospitals have been treated in being forced to participate in and observe such inhumane treatment. I see no sign of any apology by the Government as a whole to those concerned, although there was of course an apology by the Minister of State to the House of Commons earlier this week.
As I say, in most respects the Statement reflects an agreement between the Prison Service and the Royal College of Midwives. However, can the Minister say why there is no reference to the demands from the Royal College for reform of the way in which women are treated in the case of post-natal care? The Royal College asked that there should be no restraints and no prison staff present at medical or midwifery examinations; or, indeed, when women were breast feeding. I see no reference to that in the Statement and I should be
726
grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the concerns of the Royal College have also been met in that respect.
The problem is very much wider than just a matter of pregnant women prisoners, as indeed the Statement recognises. The Statement says:
"When a prisoner is escorted to hospital, physical restraints will continue to be used in most cases unless there is medical objection".
There are two different problems in that respect. First, there is the assumption that, apart from exceptional circumstances, physical restraints will still continue to be used. Surely the presupposition must be that, unless there are really exceptional circumstances, women will not be taken to hospital in chains—and I do not mean pregnant women; indeed, I mean any women in need of medical help—or be in chains while in hospital. The recent release of the woman in St. Mary's Hospital who was in chains, despite suffering actively from AIDS, gives us hope that that must really be the intention, even though the Statement does not say so.
The second point is the bland claim in the Statement that "medical objection" is a relevant consideration. The Statement says that,
"it has never been the intention of the Prison Service to apply handcuffs or chains to women who are confirmed as being in labour"—
and that leads me to ask what is meant by the word "confirmed". There has been a suggestion that it means that a form must be filled in stating that the woman concerned is in labour and, therefore, should not be handcuffed—
"and never to apply restraints contrary to medical advice".
However, I am advised that there are many examples of restraints being applied contrary to medical advice. I believe—and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, may wish to comment on this point later—that the staff at St. Mary's Hospital were not happy with the restraints being used on the woman in that hospital and that, certainly medical protests, as we know from the Whittington case, had been overruled by the rigid rules of the Prison Service.
We shall need to study the new rules laid down by the Prison Service to see how they differ from the existing rules, before we can be satisfied that there is a real change here. My understanding is that restraints have been used contrary to medical advice. I believe that it would have been more gracious of the Government to recognise that fact rather than to claim nothing was wrong in that respect.
Of course we welcome the Statement in so far as it goes, but it fails to show an adequate degree of contrition for the inhumane and degrading treatment which has been in place for a number of months now. Moreover, it fails to satisfy the remaining concerns about the civilised treatment of women prisoners leaving prison in order to go to hospital.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I am in the happy position of being able to welcome the Statement. Indeed, it is the first Home Office Statement for some substantial time where one has been in that position. It

727
is a grudging but almost total climbdown. For that all of us who have expressed concern about the matter are profoundly grateful. This has been a lamentable episode which has, undeservedly, done serious damage to the reputation of the Prison Service. I say "undeservedly" because the decision was taken not by officials but by Ministers of the Crown. That is what is so unjust so far as concerns many dedicated and honourable people in the Prison Service.
I wonder whether the Minister is able to comment on one particular point in the Home Secretary's Statement that I noticed with interest. I refer to the point where the Statement says that,
"where, following a rigorous risk assessment, the Governor comes to the conclusion that restraints are unnecessary they will no longer he used".
I am certainly in favour of risk assessment by governors because inevitably, so far as concerns male prisoners, some inmates may indeed represent a serious potential security threat. However, the use of the word "rigorous" is interesting. I understand the concept of risk assessment; on the other hand, I wonder what "rigorous risk assessment" means. I suspect that it probably means that when something goes wrong the governor will of course be attacked and Ministers will, as usual, hide behind that. I do not believe that Ministers have any realisation of the degree of scepticism—I put it as politely as possible—with which they are viewed by the Prison Service at present.
There will be a welcome by many civilised, decent and humane people in the Prison Service for the Statement. However, I must point out that extravagant rhetoric which gets Ministers standing ovations at party conferences is, unfortunately, a rather poor guide to implementing an intelligent policy in the prisons. Those who receive warm applause from the tabloids in October should not be surprised when the same tabloids denounce them in January.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must say, first, how grateful I am for the way in which noble Lords have responded, albeit with a number of criticisms. However, notwithstanding that fact, I believe that both noble Lords have accepted and welcomed the Statement. Perhaps I may put one or two things right as regards several points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I shall start with some chronology. Until 1994, the presumption was that female prisoners being escorted outside of the establishment were not handcuffed—I believe that the noble Lord is aware of that fact—unless the governor or the head of custody had reason to believe that the inmate would pose security or control problems during the escort.
The noble Lord seemed to think that there was no reason whatever for a review of that policy. However, it was in fact reviewed in April 1994. It has to be said that, in five years, 20 female prisoners escaped from hospital and seven of those women were in fact pregnant or had just given birth. That is no light matter for the Prison Service because not only myself, but certainly my predecessor in this office, have had to come to the Dispatch Box and account to the very noble Lords who are being critical today as to why it was that the Prison
728
Service had relaxed security to the extent that people were escaping from hospitals. Therefore it is proper that the Prison Service should always seek to balance the importance of protection of the public, security as regards the prisoner and the proper medical needs and dignity of the prisoner who may he experiencing some difficulties. The policy was reviewed in April 1994. Handcuffs were made mandatory for Category A female prisoners being escorted outside an establishment. However, for other female prisoners the policy was not changed.
There was indeed a further review in April 1995 and as a result of that all female prisoners are now handcuffed when they go outside an establishment, irrespective of the risk. Handcuffs are removed from female prisoners only at the request of a doctor and only for the shortest possible time. There has been a great deal of confusion, and a good deal of criticism has been bandied around, as regards how that policy has worked in practice. There has been only one serious breach of that policy—this incident was quite unacceptable in the view of both my right honourable friend and subsequently the Prison Service—when a lady was handcuffed throughout the birth of the baby. Apologies were made both to the lady concerned and in a letter to Mr. Alan Howarth back in the summer.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was also quite wrong to say that we have not addressed the whole issue of the post-natal period. I said in the Statement that no woman who goes into hospital to give birth will be restrained from the time she arrives in hospital until she leaves hospital. That includes all of the post-natal attention to the baby, which of course includes feeding the baby and attending to the baby and the mother. Until the female prisoner leaves the hospital she will not be restrained.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I acknowledge that a manuscript amendment to the Statement uses the words "until she leaves". But of course post-natal care does not occur only on the occasion of giving birth. It can be given on later occasions. I would welcome an assurance that the request of the Royal College of Midwives that there should be no restraint or prison officers present during post-natal treatment, will be agreed to, whether or not that occurs on the occasion of the visit to hospital to give birth.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have dealt with the period in hospital for the lady giving birth. I shall now refer to the post-natal period—which is just as important—when the female prisoner has returned to prison. We welcome what is contained within the statement of the Royal College of Midwives in that regard because we believe that is a basis not for me to make announcements at the Dispatch Box but for the proper operational liaison and collaborative workings between the hospital establishments and the prison institutions. We expect that situation to be improved. We know that the Royal College has said that it will do what it can to improve its services to female prisoners within prison, both before the baby is born and following the return of the female prisoner to prison.

729
I believe that we can look forward to better working relationships between the establishments because I believe that much of the criticism that has arisen has resulted from the way in which that relationship has worked out in practice in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made reference to the word "rigorous". Female prisoners can come from many different parts of the Prison Service. They may come from open prisons where a prisoner may already de facto be trusted in open prison conditions. Therefore that prisoner may be unescorted when attending a hospital appointment outside the prison. Or there may be good reason for escorting that prisoner. However, for other prisoners whose situation may be more serious a more rigorous assessment is essential. There is a distinction between the kind of assessment one would make for a prisoner where there was such a degree of trust that the assessment need not be so rigorous and those prisoners in custody where assessments have to be made about the degree of security that is necessary when they move from prison to hospital. In that case I believe the word "rigorous" is appropriate.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement which she has made which I certainly found encouraging. My noble friend will be as aware as anyone of the considerable disquiet, anxiety and deep disgust held generally as regards some of the cases which have come to light of late. That is felt particularly among hospital staff treating prisoner patients and it is felt by other patients who are naturally aware of what is going on on these difficult occasions. I must declare an interest as chairman of St. Mary's NHS Trust. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred in a sense to my knowledge of a particular case at St. Mary's which has recently been reported in the press. I believe that my noble friend would expect me not to give details of a particular case and I hope that the noble Lord will understand that. However, I can tell the noble Lord that it was certainly true to say that the circumstances of that case gave rise to a considerable amount of professional concern among the staff of St. Mary's. It was proper that that concern should have been raised. I am grateful to those who took note of those concerns when I made them known.
I should inform my noble friend that I am particularly aware, as a former Home Office Minister who 10 years ago had responsibility for prisons for 18 months or so, that this is a difficult matter to deal with. Ensuring that prisoners do not escape at times when they are more vulnerable in that respect is an important matter. However, this particular issue and the circumstances surrounding the cases that have arisen have given a clear impression that somehow procedures have gone rather over the top and have become excessive. I hope my noble friend would agree that the degree of security that is necessary must depend on the individual circumstances prevailing at the time and the clinical condition of the patient. The expert views of hospital staff must be taken seriously by the Prison Service staff
730
who otherwise would have the responsibility for the patient. Does my noble friend also agree that patients, prisoners or others, are entitled to dignity in their treatment? The same quality of care and consideration must apply universally to patients.
Finally, will my noble friend reinforce her assurance that wherever it is humanly possible women prisoners are escorted only by female prison staff when they arc in hospital and that male officers would be used only under exceptional circumstances, and those male officers would not be asked to be present—or think of being present—when certain treatments and procedures are being carried out during which their presence would be wholly inappropriate? That might well apply to female staff too. My noble friend has made an important Statement. Certain events have caused great concern among the hospital community and I am grateful to her for going a large way towards putting matters right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I understand my noble friend's reticence in referring to a particular case. It was nevertheless raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It was the medical advice in that particular case which was discussed with members of the Prison Service which resulted in what I believe was a positive outcome. I know my noble friend will accept that I believe the process could have been smoother than it was. I believe that some of the contents of the Statement today and the pledges made by the Prison Service, the institutions and the Royal College to work together in a more practical way in the future, will ensure that that will be the case.
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the degree of security that is necessary for prisoners must be a consideration for the Prison Service. That is an essential consideration as regards making judgments about how a person should be escorted to prison. For some time now it has been a part of the system that the advice of medical staff to the Prison Service should be taken into account. However, we believe it has not always been properly taken into account. Certainly under these new arrangements that advice will be taken into account. I totally agree that dignity in treatment is also an important factor in this regard.
I can reassure my noble friend in relation to his concern about escorts being female prison staff. The intention is that only female prison staff—two prison officers—will escort a female prisoner. However, we had to add the caveat concerning the possibility of not always being in a position to comply with that intention. For example, if a female prisoner became very sick in the middle of the night it might be impossible, without any flexibility, to find two female prison officers. We shall guarantee that one staff member will be female, but for the sake of getting someone to hospital quickly one of the escorts might be a male prison officer. However, neither the male prison officer nor the female prison staff would be present in the treatment room unless that was requested specifically by the female prisoner herself.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should also declare an interest as chairman of the Whittington hospital,

731
which provides the majority of maternity care for Holloway Prison. I thank the Minister for her Statement today. Is she aware that the changes she announced will be very much welcomed by medical and midwifery staff? They have had great difficulty reconciling their professional duties to their patients within the rigid strictures imposed recently by the Prison Service. Is she aware that the issues of balance are very well understood within hospitals where the potential danger is felt very strongly at first instance by the staff and other patients within the hospital community and that this is not an issue in respect of which hospital staff are in any way cavalier? Therefore, will she look with some urgency at the proposals that have been made for taking more NHS services within prisons? I speak particularly about community midwifery services, but there are also opportunities for outreach clinics and the use of technology such as telemedicine for improving the medical services at present available within prisons without in any way endangering security?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome of the Statement. She made some important points. The first that she made goes to the heart of why this is a vexed issue, namely reconciling the professional concern of medical staff for the patient with the proper concern of the Prison Service for the security of both the public and of the prisoner when not in custody inside the prison walls. There is a tension there that needs to be reconciled. I do not believe that there is a difference between us. We want to see a reconciliation which is in the best interests of everybody, particularly, in this case, the mother and the baby.
The other point which the noble Baroness raised is equally important. I believe that there is scope for considerable improvement in services provided within prison for female prisoners. We know that the Royal College of Midwives will focus its mind on what can be done. We expect that the Prison Service will co-operate as fully as possible so that the tension in moving female prisoners outside prison for medical services is reduced.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in thanking the Minister I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. The House owes a debt of gratitude to those members of the hospital staff and the midwives who drew attention to their anxiety over this matter. We should not let that go unrecorded.
Will the Minister ask the Prison Service to consider seriously the issue of those female prisoners who go to hospital for medical treatment at times other than when they give birth? The majority of women prisoners are not serving time in prison for any act of violence. Many are in prison for civil debt such as default on poll tax and television licences. They have no violence in their record, and they go to prison at considerable public expense. Physical restraint is a humiliation and a demeaning of human beings, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, indicated. Therefore, will the Minister consider with the Prison Service looking at the whole issue of whether we should apply physical restraint to prisoners who have no history of violence or previous escapes? I say that in the light of the fact that I believe
732
that I am right in saying that the total number of escapes from escorts by women prisoners in the past two years is six.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will always he a need to balance security, the public interest and the medical needs of the prisoner. We have said that if the medical advice is that a prisoner should riot be restrained then we believe that that advice should be heeded in the interests of the patient. The very people described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—those who are not pregnant and who go to hospital for other reasons—are often more capable of escaping. I said that in five years 20 female prisoners had escaped. Seven of those female prisoners were pregnant. It is very difficult for prison Ministers to account to the other place or the House of Lords for prisoners escaping when security has been relaxed and to find good reasons for saying that they were not restrained because they were females. It will be necessary from time to time to restrain female prisoners. Approximately 50 or 60 children are born to female prisoners in any one year. We have met all the safeguards relating to the medical needs of the female prisoner and we have gone to great lengths to make sure that babies are not born in prison because that would be very undesirable in the interests of the baby.
We believe that risk assessment will go a long way to satisfy the noble Baroness. If the risk assessment indicates that the prisoner should be secured, then, I am afraid, the prisoner should be secured unless that is inconsistent with medical advice.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I applaud the statements from the Opposition Front Benches. I shall leave my further comments until I raise the matter again in the House on 30th January. Perhaps I may put one question of some importance to the noble Baroness. Do the Government take responsibility for the changes which, so far as they go, are welcome, or was the decision taken by the Prison Service without interference from the Government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the decisions were taken by the Prison Service. My honourable friend in another place said in her Statement to the House earlier this week that the Prison Service would be meeting with the Royal College of Midwives. Thai meeting took place. It was a constructive meeting. It was the Prison Service which made the recommendations, and it is the Prison Service which will be responsible for carrying them out.
The noble Earl is being very discourteous, commenting from a sedentary position, especially if I heard him right. I can tell the noble Earl that I, my honourable friend who is responsible for prisons, and my right honourable friend fully support the changes that the Prison Service has agreed with the Royal College of Midwives.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in the light of the contention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the revised procedures are still excessively strict, does the noble Baroness agree that throughout history, and in countries all over the world, prisoners plotting to escape have more often than not plotted to escape from

733
hospital, whether it be the prison hospital or any other hospital, for obvious reasons? In prisons, security is an overriding consideration; in hospitals it is not and never can be a primary consideration. In view of that fact, I suggest that it will seem to most fair-minded people that the Government have now got it about right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Lord says. He is right. If one is plotting an escape it is relatively easier to do so from hospital than from prison. I am acutely conscious of the experience of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who occupied this particular post before me and who was derided in this House when he had to come to the Dispatch Box to account for a prisoner escaping from hospital. On one occasion it was through a toilet window and on another from a wheelchair. Guffaws of laughter went round the Chamber as he tried to defend the Prison Service's role on those occasions.
It is difficult to address the proper considerations for the Prison Service: the security of the public and of other patients in hospitals. In 150 escapes from hospitals in the past five years, guns, sharp instruments and blunt instruments have been used as well as physical violence without instruments. It is a difficult position for prison staff to be in. The balance between the safety of prison staff, of other patients in the hospital, hospital staff and sometimes the safety of the prisoners themselves is difficult. Some prisoners even attempt self harm and restraining them is one way of preventing it. We need a balance in understanding, recognising and respecting the dignity of the prisoner in such circumstances, as well as proper consideration for security in other circumstances.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what would the reaction of the Government be if, on conviction, the medical evidence showed that the accused was pregnant but sentence was deferred until after the birth?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that would be entirely a matter for the courts.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement. I wish to make a query about two points which she made in her supplementary answers. In one she said that a doctor may require the removal of handcuffs; in the other she mentioned that restraints might be removed on the basis of medical advice. Can she assure the House that the Government recognise that other professional people work in the National Health Service who may be in charge of patients at a certain time? I am thinking of midwives, nurses, physiotherapists and radiographers which are independent professions. May we have the assurance that any other professionals providing treatment and in charge of patients who require the removal of restraints would have their advice and requests acceded to?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we would expect the line management in the hospital to operate. The medical person responsible for any patient would be the arbiter as to whether the medical interests were such that the person should not be restrained. That would be the overriding consideration. I do not believe that that could
734
be delegated just to any member of staff in the hospital, but if staff were in any doubt as to whether the restraints should be removed, it would he for them to work through their line manager or whoever was in charge of the patient's medical treatment at the time.

HMSO: Privatisation
5.12 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, we return to the Motion which my noble friend the Leader of the House moved some time ago. I am conscious that there is another debate to follow and I shall therefore not detain the House for long.
I listened with interest to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I hope the latter will return to the debate as I have one or two points to address in relation to his speech. I believe that the Offices Committee was absolutely right to insist on stringent safeguards for the protection of parliamentary business by whoever will be responsible for handling it when the Stationery Office is privatised. It was said in paragraph 5, and the committee agreed, that extensive safeguards will be necessary to protect the interests of the House. The first safeguard is:
"Confidence that the business of the House will not be interrupted".
My memory goes back several years, to the time when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. In that office I was responsible for the Stationery Office. I have a clear recollection of having to come down to the House of Commons on a number of occasions to apologise profusely that the papers necessary for the conduct of the business of the House were not available, or were available in such small quantities and had been produced by methods other than normal printing because of industrial disruption by HMSO. In the historical glow about that venerable institution to which we were treated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, there is sometimes a tendency to forget that life in the past has not always been quite so rosy as depicted in the sales prospectus. That is what the information pack is—a sales prospectus.
Even more recently, as Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, it fell to me to receive the Merrison report which was published very shortly after the 1979 election. The Stationery Office was on strike and I had to make a Statement to the House. We were about to publish the report and there was widespread interest both inside and outside the House as to what the Royal Commission would recommend. Therefore I had to indicate the Government's view. It would have been wholly inconceivable that a Secretary of State should have had to stand at the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons and make a Statement about a major government publication and confess that no copies of the report were available for Members in either House. Perhaps that little piece of history has never been written.

735
I saw the Civil Service in the department at its best on that occasion. Staff recognised early in the morning that we would not be able to obtain the copies which we had been promised through the normal channels. I did not inquire too deeply as to the methods used by my Private Office and some of the people who worked with it. All I know is that during the course of the morning they secured from the warehouses in Cornwall House—the other side of London Bridge—sufficient copies of the report to meet, they thought, the immediate needs of both Houses of Parliament.
There were pickets on the Carriage Gates ready to stop any van delivering papers to the House of Commons on behalf of the Stationery Office. So the device was chosen that we loaded all the copies into the boots of five ministerial cars which drove peacefully through the pickets and emerged into Speaker's Court. Happily, copies of the Royal Commission report were unloaded from the boots of the cars and transported upstairs by House of Commons staff and staff in this House so that by 3.30 p.m. when I rose to make my Statement no whisper needed to be made of the situation. There were sufficient copies in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office here for Members' needs. That was small thanks, I have to say, to the staff of the Stationery Office at that time.
Of course, things are much better today as a result of legislation passed over the last 15 years restoring a better balance between employers and trade unions in the conduct of industrial relations. The Stationery Office has progressively been exposed to some of the chill winds of competition, than which there is nothing better for injecting a sense of responsibility towards customers.
As we read in the information pack, the Stationery Office was first a trading fund. It then became open to government departments and other public sector customers of the Stationery Office to place their business elsewhere. They did that, in increasing numbers. As a result, now that the Stationery Office is an executive agency, the words quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, could have been a vindication of the policy of putting large parts of the public sector into executive agencies. It has certainly had a benign effect on the efficiency of the Stationery Office.
One point to which neither noble Lord opposite addressed himself is that the Stationery Office is left in the position of having to compete for public sector custom against the entire rest of the industry—since, now, the public sector can place its orders wherever it chooses—while at the same time it is precluded from going out to the private sector to attract business. And why is that? Because it is a public sector organisation, subject to inevitable Treasury constraints, and also subject to the rules on public sector borrowing. It is therefore in a position of potentially competing unfairly with the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, attempted to deal with that argument by asking: what about the Post Office? Virtually the entire custom of the Post Office is already private sector custom. There is no argument. The Post Office is there as an organisation to serve business,
736
individuals and a range of customers up and down the land. It still has the statutory monopoly over the letter post—the amount that is paid for delivery of a letter. It still has that monopoly and no competitors can come in on it. That gives the Post Office its favoured position. For the rest, it competes with business generally. That is not open to the Stationery Office.
I, too, read the debates in another place very carefully, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Shadow spokesmen were challenged: if they were going to change the rules and allow the Stationery Office, notwithstanding that it was a public sector executive agency, to go out into the market and compete for private sector customers with the rest of the industry, was the Shadow Chancellor prepared to change the rules in order to allow it to do that? Mr. Brown made it very clear in his efforts to convince investors from Tokyo to Singapore and wherever, and in this country, that the rules were to be applied every bit as strictly as they have been. That has been said many times. Yet in relation to a particular case Opposition spokesmen cheerfully say that the rules can be broken to allow the Stationery Office to compete as much as it likes; it could still have access to privileged borrowing. Would that still be part of the public sector debt?
The trouble is, there is an enormous hole in the arguments of the two noble Lords opposite. They want to see the Stationery Office flourish; I accept completely their good faith in that matter—and indeed, reading from the sales puff in the information pack, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out that there would be a useful and successful organisation that would be offered for sale to the private sector. But if we want a successful Stationery Office, it must have the ability to compete for the other suppliers' customers, just as those other suppliers are now free to compete for the customers of the Stationery Office. We have faced this dilemma in the case of quite a number of industries. The answer was the same in every case. It needs to have the freedom to compete that is given to the private sector.
Furthermore, we have seen huge increases in efficiency following the privatisations. The disciplines of the market, of the financial world, are more effective in keeping an organisation up to scratch than is the ability to question a Minister at the Dispatch Box, or even having a Minister in front of a Select Committee upstairs. Those are the sanctions on a public sector organisation. If you know that you will go out of business if you fail, that is likely to be a very much better bet for the success of the business. The real argument here is that the Stationery Office is currently neither one thing nor another. Its customers can go elsewhere. It cannot. Therefore, the case for privatisation is overwhelming.
Perhaps I might just for a second have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to respond to a point in his speech. I enjoyed it very much indeed, but we were led to believe that the privatisation of the Stationery Office spelt the end of the slate itself. It was seen as part of a huge process of dismantling the entire state edifice. The noble Lord took a number of selected texts from my noble friend Lady Thatcher and others to try to justify his statement. For all the noble Lord's

737
rigorous intellectual discipline, the heart of his argument was: you are trying to free the Stationery Office from the shackles of the Treasury while at the same time pinning down the purchaser with all sorts of restrictions and agreements. The noble Lord described them as totally contradictory objectives.
There is nothing contradictory about them at all. When it comes to supplying this House and another place, whether it is a matter of the provision of Hansard or the printing of papers or Acts of Parliament, the contract that will need to be made by the supplier has to be, as the Offices Committee recommends, very tight, very tough and very specific, with completely watertight conditions. We do not know that yet. There will be an opportunity.
That having been done--and there may be other public sector purchasers who will want similar tough contracts—I want the Stationery Office to be free to compete in the rest of the market as freely as it can, whatever it wishes to be called. There are any number of examples of public sector bodies that were privatised over recent years and achieved just that: first-class service to their continuing public sector customers, while at the same time being free to compete with their private sector competitors. I understand the objections, and it is interesting that it is both present and past members of the Labour Party who take this objection. They want to see the Stationery Office being competed against, but not free to compete with the rest of the market. That is the logic of what they say. To my mind, that is nonsense.
5.27 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as your Lordships will see from the Order Paper, this is a maiden speech. It gives me great personal pleasure to make my maiden in a debate opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I am afraid the McNallys have not troubled Garter King of Arms as often as the Cecils over the centuries, but our paths did cross in that we were part of that highly talented 1979 intake to the other place after the general election. The noble Viscount then left the other place voluntarily, and I left by public demand! Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to be back under the same roof.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, tells the tale of, when he started his distinguished parliamentary career, overhearing two of his new colleagues saying, "Don't know what the place is coming to; they've let my tailor in now". I was worried over the past week that I might hear, "Don't know what the place is coming to; they've let my spin doctor in now". The truth is that over the past 30 years my career in Whitehall and Westminster has been spent trying to help a large number of noble Lords on both sides of the House get the right message to the right person at the right time. In case any of them are getting worried, I do not intend to start naming names this evening, except one. For seven years I had the honour and pleasure of working with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Those were periods of great personal pride for me. The only thing that gives me any sense of embarrassment these days is that, with the impetuosity
738
of youth, I used to go round describing myself as "Lord Callaghan's political adviser". That is like describing yourself as "riding adviser to Willie Carson".
The only other comment I make on my past life is that, as someone who has worked and still works in public relations, I know that the relationship between my industry and this House is of continuing concern to your Lordships. From a personal point of view, I intend to set standards of probity for others to follow. But in considering that relationship and lobbying, I hope that the House, in a search for political correctness, does not cut itself off from ideas, information and opinion. Along that road the only winner is an already over-powerful and over-secretive Executive.
Today we are discussing one of those curious proposals which are often the death rattle of a dying administration. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, could not understand the misgivings on this side of the House. I think they could be summarised in the phrase, "a sense of dignity". The proposal seems to be one of a collection of measures in which the Government have lost all sense of dignity in what they are trying to do. The noble Lord dismissed the information pack which was put out for the benefit of Members in preparation for this debate. I know that Ministers have not used it but this side of the House has done so. That information pack suddenly became, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, a sales prospectus and indeed a sales puff. I found the information extremely helpful, as I noticed did the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It tells us that HMSO is,
"a modern business with a highly skilled and experienced workforce, strategically well placed to benefit from a changing market place".
It is clear that we are not dealing with any lame duck but with a market leader. Not only that, it is a market leader which at the present time has the confidence of both Houses of Parliament in providing prompt, accurate and secure services which are essential to the efficient working of Parliament and Westminster. Ministers are willing to set that organisation adrift. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins said, there can be no guarantee of jobs, location or even ultimate ownership. Again, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. There is a difference between what I would call a stable-door-shutting action after some mess and the accountability of Ministers in this House and in the other place at the Dispatch Box.
When he spoke on 13th December the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, made a valid point when he said that a decade ago undoubtedly Captain Robert Maxwell and his companies would have been the leading contenders for the purchase of HMSO. He rightly warned the House:
"Think of the difficulties that might arise if a future Mr. Maxwell were running the company responsible for printing all our parliamentary papers!"—[Official Report, 13/12/95; co1.1326.]
As I said, stable-door-slamming guarantees are of no value in such circumstances.
On these Benches we have acknowledged that over the past 15 years, through their process of privatisation, the Government have produced some outstanding British companies from the slumbering giants in the

739
state sector. The Government are entitled to take credit for that. On the other hand, we on these Benches are entitled to say that our criticisms and doubts do not come from doctrine or ideology. Where privatisation has succeeded, we have given the Government credit.
But in examining a case such as the one we are debating today, my mind goes back to over a decade ago when I switched on the television and saw one of the first television broadcasts from this House. There was a maiden speech by Lord Stockton. In that speech he made the remarks about privatisation and likened it to selling the family silver or a much loved Canaletto. It seems to me that having got rid of quite a lot of the family silver and Canalettos, we are now chopping up a Chippendale for firewood. It is the use and application of ideology to something which needs much more commonsense. I am still not clear as to how the Government intend to get the authority of both Houses for these plans. It would have been more straightforward, before they set off on elaborate consultations and putting out their puff pieces to the private sector, if they had asked in either House for a straight yes or no to the question "Do you want HMSO privatised?" I suspect that we all know why they did not do so. But this House has already indicated that this debate is not the last word on the subject. There will be need for further information and for a proper decision to be made by the House on whether or not it wants this privatisation to proceed.
The best that can be said from what we have heard today from the Government is a judgment—a judgment which perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would go along with—of "not proven". Until it is proven, Ministers can expect no support from these Benches, nor, I suspect, from many other parts of the House.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the very thoughtful speech that he delivered to your Lordships. The noble Lord has been in public office for nearly 30 years. He first emerged into semi-public life, as noble Lords may well be aware, as chairman of the students' union at University College. He became a leading officer in the National Union of Students and thereafter went into politics, first, as a research assistant and later as an assistant secretary to the illustrious Fabian Society. Amongst its members there have been known to be members of the Government Benches. From there the noble Lord progressed into the Labour Party headquarters itself. He became an adviser to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and later to the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Harold Wilson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. During that time he became a Member of Parliament of the Labour interest. In 1981 he moved sideways from the Labour Party to the Social Democratic Party and has continued to serve in public life in that way.
With advancing years, many of your Lordships become accustomed to vertical movement up or down, as the case may be. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has
740
shown an ability to move more laterally. We look forward to hearing his observations in the future, particularly in those fields of public affairs in which he is very well known indeed. Your Lordships will be only too pleased to hear frequently from the noble Lord on subjects of his choice.
Possibly because of his most attractive countenance and because of his history, I cast an eye over the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. If he felt some amusement or pleasure at the speech when listening, it certainly did not show in his face. He appeared to be most remarkably discomfited. But I must congratulate him on regaining his poise. Of course, I shall have to deal in due course with some of his arguments.
The Stationery Office first came under review in recent times when your Lordships were considering a development the government of the time called the Next Steps agencies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, indicated in her reply to me the other day, HMSO has been a Next Steps agency since 1980 and is subject to Next Steps agency rules. Your Lordships will recall that one of the purposes of the establishment of the Next Steps agencies was to rid Ministers of direct responsibility for the detailed operations of agencies under their control. The rules are carefully laid down.
In December 1989 the Treasury published a document seeking to allay what it foresaw as public apprehension about the accountability to Parliament of the Next Steps agencies. Paragraph 5.1 states:
"As the Prime Minister has made clear, Next Steps will involve no diminution in Ministerial accountability to Parliament. Indeed, the creation of Agencies will clarify managerial responsibilities and reinforce accountability to Ministers and to Parliament. This is true both of Agencies which are,"—
for example, HMSO—
"or become, trading funds and of Agencies financed through Parliamentary Supply".
Therefore the status of HMSO is not in any way in dispute. The Government gave an undertaking that all Next Steps agencies shall remain accountable to Parliament. The matter was discussed in your Lordships' House in early 1990, after a previous discussion in another place on the Government Trading Bill. The Government Trading Bill expressly provided for changes in financing procedure and also for the complete delegation of responsibility from Ministers down to the agencies, so much so that some of us were apprehensive at that time that the bringing in of the Next Steps agencies, whether existing or to be, under the Government Trading Act of that year, would expose them to privatisation.
It is in that regard that the Government gave a number of assurances, which I have no doubt were made in good faith at the time but which enabled that measure to go through, largely after consultation between Her Majesty's Opposition and Her Majesty's Government, in which at that time I played a leading part in conjunction with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. During the course of the debate on Second Reading I asked if he would say whether the measure itself would lead to privatisation or was a first step in that direction. He replied,

741
"The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, spoke earlier about privatisation and will mention the matter in more detail at a later stage. Before agencies are set up all other options, including abolition and privatisation, are examined. In most cases the examination leads to the conclusion that the nature of the services provided by the agencies does not make privatisation a feasible or realistic option. That is not to say that some activities might not be contracted out, but generally our expectation is that most mainstream activities of Next Steps agencies will continue to remain within central government for the foreseeable future".—[Official Report, 8/3/90; col. 1292.]
That was the context within which the debates took place on the Next Steps agencies. The noble Earl went even further in making pertinent observations and giving undertakings which still have some validity today because HMSO is still a Next Steps agency. In the course of the Committee stage of the Government Trading Bill, I asked the Minister a question in these terms,
"I should like to be reassured that the other functions of the Minister in relation to the agency are not disturbed by that in any way and that we are talking about day-to-day management. I should also like to be reassured that the ultimate responsibility in terms of responsibility to Parliament and scrutiny and examination by the National Audit Office, remains intact in all cases and that … the final responsibility for accountability to Parliament will remain with the Minister of the Crown".
The noble Earl was kind enough to give an undertaking in these terms,
"On the noble Lord's second point, I am sure that I can give him the assurance that he seeks".—[Official Report, 12/6/90; col. 228.]
All the way through the proceedings on the Next Steps agencies, including those existing which includes HMSO, those undertakings still hold; they have not been repudiated in any way. Speaking again on 12th June 1990 the noble Earl said,
"With regard to privatisation, I note that Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, deal more specifically with this matter. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance on privatisation: namely, that the Bill does not contain power to enable a trading fund to be privatised without subsequent primary legislation".—[Col. 231.]
It has never been suggested—indeed it has almost been denied—that the passing of any primary legislation will be necessary to effect the change. That is something to which we all should pay attention.
I could go on for a long time, almost to the point of being repetitious, on government undertakings given at that time regarding privatisation; that if it ever did happen—with increasing remoteness—it would need primary legislation. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will take note of the demand by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition that we are given a proper occasion upon which a vote may be taken as to whether privatisation shall be allowed to proceed. In the light of their own undertakings, I should have thought it would be at least honourable for primary legislation to be brought forward, as was originally stated in this House.
The principal reason for the Government deciding to privatise appears to have been omitted. I hate to mention it—one does not like to mention money too much in this place. However, in view of government finances at the present time it may not have escaped your Lordships'
742
notice that the Government would dearly like to have an extra £100 million or so—or whatever the price of it may be, unless it is knocked down to a price which the Government ultimately have to accept for it. The sales prospects have not been enhanced by some of the remarks that fell from the lips of noble Lords opposite this afternoon. Nevertheless, that remains the position.
Why do not noble Lords come clean about this and admit that we are in the dying stages of a Parliament and that what the Government are desperately trying to do now, aside from raising money, is to make quite sure that when the next Labour Government come into office power will be retained in the private sector, where, increasingly, the Government's own placemen have been put over the past two or three years, who are likely to be reinforced by those who have already volunteered that they will not be standing again at the next election?
This is a disreputable step by the Government of which they should be thoroughly ashamed and which goes against every undertaking expressed or implied when the matter was considered in 1990. I sincerely hope that even at this stage they will have the decency and honour to withdraw it.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in the debate following the Minister's Statement in the summer I asked by noble friend Lady Blatch by what name the privatised HMSO was likely to be known. This was not, as I pointed out at the time, a frivolous remark—and I repeat that now—but because I wished to ascertain where the new organisation would stand in the commercial world.
Although I note from the information pack that last year HMSO Manchester Print and Logistics lost an Inland Revenue contract, HMSO—considerable parts of HMSO, I should say—is largely protected against competition. The successful applicant for the privatised business is unlikely to enjoy this protection. It would be illogical to offer such protection in any aspect of the work because a company either is or is not privatised. It cannot have it both ways. My noble friend the Leader of the House said that it would now be able to compete fully, but it is also likely to be competed with fully. It cannot have it both ways; or if it attempted to do so it would be likely to face strong comments from the Opposition.
Although it is not the convention so to do, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who, sadly, is not in his place, on his powerful and reasoned maiden speech. I would say that he showed all the traditional non-controversial air of F.E. Smith in another place.
In his speech the noble Lord, Lord Richard, commended the information pack and, if I may sum up what he said, asked why the Government wished to privatise HMSO when the information pack spoke so highly of it. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding pointed out, this is a sales document. The opening words of the information pack are:
"The Government is considering the privatisation of HMSO".

743
In those circumstances, they were bound to produce what is in effect a prospectus for sale. The information pack is produced by Coopers & Lybrand and I am only too well aware of the case that Coopers & Lybrand seeks to make on any company which it wishes to sell. Therefore, what the information pack said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, must be treated with a certain amount of reserve.
In the December debate the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, noted the increase in the cost of Hansard in another place of 1,500 per cent. between 1979 and 1995—from 45p to £7.50. I have not made quite certain of the new pricing policy for Hansard, although of course the price of Hansard in this House today is £2.50 compared with £4.20 on 13th December, the day of the Statement. But, overall, I can find very little justification for the high prices charged by HMSO for its publications.
Going through my bookshelves—this may show my interest—I find that the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, reprinted in 1993, costs £23.80; the Broadcasting Act 1990, reprinted in 1995, costs £19.90. In contrast, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, reprinted in 1980, costs £4.50 and the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, reprinted in 1984, costs £6.
These costs and these increases are too high. Newsprint and paper of similar grades cost £220 a tonne in 1979. As the noble Lord said, Hansard cost 45p. Newsprint went up to £425 a tonne in 1988–89 but then dropped by up to 35 per cent. with discounts which were accepted throughout the industry. In 1996 the cost is £495 a tonne. Hansard costs £7.20. These figures—an increase of 125 per cent.—may be said to be less than the increase in the cost of living.
Paper is the highest cost in printing. Behind it comes labour. The major reduction in the number of staff employed in the industry over the same period means that there has been a massive reduction in costs. So there should be. There has been a massive reduction in print costs everywhere because of the introduction of what has laughingly been known as new technology, and it is very surprising that the reduction in costs for HMSO for those aspects of HMSO which concern purely printing has not been very much greater.
The Official Report and other HMSO publications require speed of printing since they have to be immediately distributed. Other print work does not quite have the same requirements. While delay cannot be accepted, it is possible to fit publication into a schedule and by so doing achieve enormous economies of cost. In the case of newspapers, the demise of hot metal has, curiously, made the newspapers less up-to-date than they were. But the fact that a publisher no longer has to store quantities of lead over a considerable area, with considerable weight and considerable costs, means that reproduction of papers of all kinds, largely achieved by facsimile, is easier and far quicker, with little need to carry the vast stocks which were necessary in the past.
I suspect that any possible purchaser, on looking at the books and operation of HMSO, will find himself in an Aladdin's cave. In the debate the other day on the
744
Broadcasting Bill it was suggested that Channel 4 might just possibly need funding at some stage in the future because circumstances might change. But think of any printer given the Highway Code, for instance, to produce, with a totally guaranteed sale and repeated updates as new regulations are thought up. He would consider it to be hand rubbing time.
It is difficult not to avoid the view that the products of certain parts of HMSO—not, of course, all, for much of the business is in competition with the private sector—are overpriced or uncompetitively priced or inefficiently managed. As a newspaper manager of the 1970s and 1980s, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, will confirm, I know inefficient management of a printing business when I see it. However, it has to be said, to be fair to managers of those days, that life was not made easy by the noble Baroness's predecessors, particularly Lord Briginshaw, and her colleagues in other print unions.
But in all the conclusion is inescapable. The privatised HMSO will be very different from the one we know today and probably thinner and more profitable, with increased sales and turnover resulting from reduced costs and prices. There must be very many who, like myself before I entered your Lordships' House, would have liked to have acquired many of the HMSO publications but were prevented by the excessive charges made. It must be in everyone' s interest for the public to be better informed about the operation of government and ancillary matters. It cannot be impossible by keeping HMSO in the public sector, but by paying greater attention as to how it operates. But if it can be done without risk by privatisation and at no cost, provided standards are maintained—and that is the all important matter to which all noble Lords have paid great attention—the view I take on the matter is, "Why not?".
6 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, before I make my contribution I would like to declare an interest which I regard as an honourable one. I was a regional secretary for the printing union that covered the north west. In fact in the north west we had a large HMSO establishment, but it is much diminished now. I later became general secretary and negotiated across the board the national agreement that we had with HMSO. I am today still a member of that union.
I address my remarks to the welfare of the employees of HMSO and how they and I see the proposed changes. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said, HMSO employed about 6,000 people and there are now just over 2,000. Similar reductions are true of a whole range of manufacturing industries. As change has been introduced, numbers have been reduced. Much of the debate both here and in the other place has concentrated, understandably, on London. But there are establishments in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Bristol, Birmingham and Norwich, which has been mentioned. In Norwich there are about 900 people employed, mainly civil servants. There are also establishments in Leeds and Manchester, where I come from—and, by the

745
way, where the boxes for a general election are stored. That is not something that we have discussed. It is not all simply a question of printing and paper. The security printing establishment where our passports are produced is in Manchester, as indeed is the bookshop. There is also of course London where the parliamentary press is in particular.
As has already been said in this debate, HMSO was founded in 1786 to make sure that corruption in public purchasing did not occur in parliamentary work. The reason it was set up was an honourable one. It is perhaps right that the age of the organisation is mentioned. I say that because today we tend to think that if something is very old—I do not include this Chamber—it is not necessarily relevant to a modern market place. But one can look at the matter in another way, and I do. HMSO would not have survived all that time if it had not changed and kept up with the times. That is why the employees feel that this move by the Government is potentially destructive for them.
It is not as though the employees have not changed. The noble Viscount referred—rightly—to the reduction in the workforce. If one looks at the statement of accounts annually presented to Parliament by HMSO, in 1993 there was £9.5 million for redundancy and early retirement paid out of the profit that HMSO made, not paid by the taxpayer. Last year's accounts, the latest ones, show that £8.2 million has been set aside for redundancies; so there is continual revision.
It is not as though HMSO has not met the targets set by the Treasury; it has met them. It is not as though HMSO has not made a profit; it has made a profit. It is still the largest print buyer in the United Kingdom. Much of the work that comes through HMSO is produced in the private sector. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the private sector benefits substantially through HMSO and the contracts it negotiates.
From the point of view of employees working at HMSO, they faced the trading fund that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington mentioned, agency status, market testing and only a few months ago the establishment of what is called "free standing businesses", obviously approved in discussion. Yet before the ink was dry on the paper what happens? We have the announcement about privatisation.
Much has been said about government departments being given the opportunity in the early 1980s to purchase their print anywhere. I was a union officer at that time. I can remember people saying, "Of course, you know what the real name of the game is, don't you? HMSO will not get any contracts. It will be wiped off the surface of the earth because it will not be able to compete". All those prophets of doom and gloom are absolutely wrong. HMSO has competed, has changed considerably and has been and is making a profit.
Among the papers put in the Printed Paper Office for noble Lords was the Coopers & Lybrand review. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, was not saying, "Well, this is a prospectus. It has a lot of good news, but we do not believe a word of it". Coopers & Lybrand
746
might take exception to that. But the union representatives met with the company this week and raised the issue of market testing. Market testing is government policy and HMSO has gone through it. Equally, government policy is to have regular market testing.
One of the biggest accounts of HMSO is the Ministry of Defence. Its market testing contract is due for renewal in six months' time, just around the time when, if this privatisation goes through, the prospectus will probably be available. I ask the Minister who is to reply what will happen about that. Are the Government going to put that out for market testing? That would certainly be something that I would want to know if I was buying a company which was going through privatisation.
Much has been made in the debate about the 10 per cent. drop in the turnover of HMSO. But we cannot treat the organisation in isolation. We have to look at the recession and the cut-backs by the Government in some of their efficiency moves. If we consider printing generally in the United Kingdom, thousands of jobs have been lost and much work has been cut back because of the recession. I do not accept that there are any sound, proven business reasons why HMSO should be privatised. I do not ask noble Lords to take my word for that. In his reply it will be interesting if the Minister can confirm that as many as 40 approaches have already been made expressing an interest in purchasing the organisation. I was told today that the figure is 60. One does not get that number of bids for a lame duck. It is quite clear that this is a very ripe cherry for the picking as far as the private sector is concerned.
On 18th December in another place the Minister said:
"I fully recognise that a change in ownership is a source of concern for staff. However, I am convinced that it is the best means of safeguarding their future".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/95; col. 1282.]
On what grounds did the Minister make that statement? What proof, what evidence did the Minister have for making that statement? All the evidence is that in a privatisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said, people face increasing redundancies. As regards the Minister's view that that is the best way of safeguarding the future of the staff, I have to tell noble Lords that they feel betrayed by this decision. If the Government are so sure that it is in the best interests of the staff, why not ask them at this time of empowerment? Why not ask the staff what they think? Do they not have a stake in this business? Have they not made a major contribution in its development?
The noble Viscount said that the TUPE protection would be there. What protection? It is minimal, and does not apply to reorganisation. I say that because the Government's decision is to privatise the printing and publishing sides together as one arm. Anyone who knows the printing industry is aware that that is not the model which is applied today. Printing and publishing are separate. One just needs to look at what has happened. Printing contracts are hived off to another company; the publishing is dealt with by a separate company. In that kind of reorganisation clearly a coach and horses could be driven through TUPE. There would

747
be no protection for the staff. Of course, there will he plenty of bidders wanting to buy both because they will he able to see the benefits for themselves.
Understandably, one of the major concerns of the staff is their pension scheme. The Minister in another place said that the pension scheme is non-contributory. It is not. Employees do not have pension contributions deducted from their salaries, but in the annual negotiation a notional amount of 9 per cent. is allocated for pension contributions. So, the Government aim to hive off the organisation, with TUPE protecting wages at the pay-cheque level, on top of which is a notional 9 per cent., and the Minister says that "broadly comparable" terms will be agreed for the pension scheme. What does "broadly comparable" mean? At the moment the HMSO pension scheme is salary and service-related. However, the drift in the private sector is towards money purchase schemes. Furthermore, the fact that the pension scheme is to be transferred is no guarantee that it will remain the same. Perhaps that is why the Minister said that it will be "broadly comparable". Understandably, that is a key issue for the employees.
I say that that is a key issue because if one considers the age and service profiles of HMSO's employees, one sees that long service is the norm in that organisation. Indeed, I do not know of many organisations with a turnover of over £300 million a year in which the highest paid executive receives £73,000. Is this to be another privatisation involving "golden eggs" for the company that buys the organisation? "Public service" means something at HMSO. It means something because the employees have invested their life's work in it.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on another important issue from the perspective of the employees. In both another place and this place, understandably I suppose, Members have been concerned about parliamentary publications and about "our" Hansard which we want every day, preferably being delivered before 7.30 a.m. Although I understand that, the parliamentary publications side of HMSO accounts for only 10 per cent. of the business. HMSO is accountable to Parliament. I suggest that that accountability carries with it a responsibility on Parliament to the employees of that organisation. When considering this privatisation, I suggest that we cannot consider only the parliamentary area; we must look at the organisation in the round and bear in mind Parliament's responsibility to the employees. In effect, we are the board of directors.
The noble Viscount referred to TUPE and pensions. However, with the greatest of respect to him, I must say that those undertakings were not assurances from the employees' point of view. Furthermore, I am not clear what is meant by "Parliament deciding". Does that mean that Parliament will decide what happens to the parliamentary publications side of HMSO's contracts—that is, to 10 per cent. of its contracts—or does it mean that Parliament will decide what happens to HMSO in the round? I should like an answer to that question.
I should also like the Minister to answer a question that was put to him by a number of noble Lords. I refer to the matter of who is going to decide. As my noble
748
friend Lord Richard asked: who will decide? I know that it has been said that Parliament will decide, but how and under what procedure? Will there he a vote? Will we consider a Motion and will we have a debate on the Floor of this House? I hope so. However, the key question relates to what that debate will cover. Will it relate only to the very narrow area of parliamentary publications or will it cover HMSO as a whole being accountable to Parliament? In my view, this matter must be subject to the decision of both Houses of Parliament. It should not be a government decision.
Looking back, I can only come to the conclusion that the decision was not really made in 1995. The decision to privatise HMSO was taken all those years ago at the beginning of the 1980s. This has been a step-by-step approach, seeking to get the organisation into shape in order to privatise it. I hope that I am wrong, but I think that that is a reasonable assessment. If that is the case, I would regard it as an act of vandalism and dogma. That is what the employees will feel about it. I urge the Government to think again. Why sell off something which does not cost the nation anything, which provides an adequate and full service to the nation and which has a loyal workforce?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, first I must add my congratulations to a personal friend of some 30 years' standing who in this House I must refer to as the noble Lord, Lord McNally. We have co-operated together across party lines and for non-party activities in a variety of situations for a long time and I am delighted to see him join us in this place.
I begin by paying tribute to HMSO. I had ministerial responsibility for it in rather happier tunes than those referred to by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, as I had that responsibility from 1981 to 1985. It was a time of rapid change which was extremely well managed by the then controller and chief executive, Bill Sharp. We managed to bring the whole operation up to date, to make it much more efficient and to win our contracts within the public service because of the quality and pricing of the service offered. I say that in response to the predictions which the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has just made. I think that in those days HMSO did extremely well.
Change has continued apace, however, and the public sector market has declined. The turnover of HMSO has reduced by some 10 per cent. since 1990. The figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he said that turnover had risen from £260 million to over £375 million over 15 years disguised the fact that HMSO's turnover has been in decline for the past five years. One needs to take that into account if one is to have a proper appreciation of the situation. However, I well understand that that point was not made baldly in what was essentially a selling document prepared by Coopers and Lybrand.
Alas, job losses have become more likely as a result of the changes that have taken place. As I understand the position, the Government believe that by allowing access to new markets, privatisation will protect jobs,

749
lead to improved efficiency and maximise value for money for the taxpayer who, inevitably, will remain a substantial purchaser through ministries and Parliament.
All that is of the essence of political controversy, as was manifestly clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and from the somewhat over-the-top rhetorical flourishes of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
I want to stand back from those political issues and to concentrate on the special requirements of Parliament. Having come from another place, I can testify, as can others, to the vital role that HMSO has played over the years in providing Hansard, Order Papers, Bills, amendments, committee reports and the rest. One also recalls the awful difficulties when supplies were disrupted by industrial action several years ago. Those incidents were referred to specifically by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Taking all that into account, I am delighted that the Government have made it abundantly clear that the requirements of Parliament will be paramount—that meeting those requirements is an essential prerequisite to proceeding with the sale of what will become the Stationery Office. That has been said clearly and in terms in both Houses of Parliament and repeated at different levels of ministerial and government involvement.
Parliamentary requirements and concerns were well set out in another place in Madam Speaker's letter to the Lord President of the Council dated 28th November 1995; and in the report of the Offices Committee, which we accepted earlier today, those requirements so far as concerns this House were also specified.
The questions that need to be answered are: how will the Government and the House authorities guarantee that those onerous parliamentary requirements will be met? I accept of course that that amounts to only roughly 10 per cent. of HMSO's total activity, but so far as concerns Parliament, those are vital matters, and Ministers have made it clear that the thing will not proceed unless the parliamentary requirements are met. They have to be met, not just for a few years, not just until some financial difficulties threaten the privatised Stationery Office, or if it becomes subject to a takeover bid, but for decades to come. What long-term safeguards can be established to ensure that that will happen? How will the safeguards be structured and maintained? What sanctions will be available to this House or to another place if things go wrong? Will the availability of parliamentary papers be guaranteed if things go wrong in some way or another with the new, privatised Stationery Office? What will happen if the service becomes rather shoddy, and the papers begin to be delayed? How do we deal with that? Will it he possible for contractual arrangements to he entered into, which will ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that both Houses of Parliament will receive the service they demand and which has been made the essential prerequisite to proceeding with these matters?
I wonder whether the lawyers will be able to devise what is described by my noble friend Lady Blatch as the comprehensive contractual package that will take full account of the needs of Parliament. It is easy to say
750
those words, but, it will be jolly difficult to devise the system that will deliver upon them. I have some doubts about the future, but, nevertheless, I shall be following developments with great care. I hope that effective ways will be found to provide both Houses of Parliament with the effective safeguards that they properly demand.
6.23 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I shall be brief, if only because my contribution is somewhat more mundane than that of noble Lords who have already spoken. I speak from my interest in information technology. The particular role upon which I wish to focus is the role of HMSO as printer and publisher of the Official Report, which amounts, as the noble Baroness said, to 10 per cent. of the business of HMSO.
It could be argued that the newspaper media are no longer the natural vehicle of mass communication; that they have been superseded by the broadcast media. In a very real sense therefore, the principle of communicating our business to the people, via the expedient of the printed page, may be something of an anachronism. That begs all sorts of questions. Should our proceedings be broadcast in full by both television and radio on a national basis? Perhaps a little more facetiously (but not, it must be said beyond the realms of possibility, and a question that I pose in all seriousness) should Parliament go digital?
More than that, even as we speak, there is in all probability bandwidth on the Internet that is being used to discuss the issue of whether Hansard should be on-line. I know that to be the case, because I have been following precisely that thread in the uk.politics newsgroup. It is that that intrigues me. Whatever the future of HMSO, can our proceedings be delivered to the public in a medium appropriate to our information age? Can we expect that the Official Report will be available on floppy disc, on CD-Rom, or on both? Will Hansard establish its own "web" site?
I appreciate that such developments are not without their problems; for example, with respect to copyright. Nor would I anticipate that any IT-driven method of communicating our proceedings could or would replace the printed page entirely. Be that as it may, we need to consider carefully how it is that we wish to deliver the text of our proceedings to the wider world. In considering that we should ask ourselves whether government—any government—would meet the costs involved. My impression is that history suggests that they would not.
I conclude with a salutary observation from the "Interface" section of The Times of 22nd November last year:
"According to manufacturers, you would need to chop down 11 trees to get enough paper to store the same information held on just one CD. The trees would, in total, take 220 years to grow, but the CD is made in just 1.9 seconds".
In our era of environmentalist concern, of sustainable development, of financial constraint, that fact should guide our thinking as to how our proceedings will be delivered to the general public in the future and as to the future of HMSO.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I rise to support the arguments put forward by my noble friend the Leader of the House. I have to say also that I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he exposed so much management-speak gobbledegook of the kind with which we are all so much afflicted nowadays. I must say also that if HMSO has been subjected to all the rubbish that the noble Lord so wittily exposed, I am a little surprised that it has become the commercial success that he appeared to accept that it has become.
I fear that I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he seems to indicate—perhaps I misunderstood him—that partly because HMSO has become a commercial success, it should not be privatised. That is a point which was made by other noble Lords. I do not follow the argument that only over-manned and loss-making old state industries are those which are suitable for privatisation. I should have thought that it was more advantageous to privatise what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, described as a "ripe cherry". Surely that will allow more stringent guarantees as to future quality to be inserted into the sale agreement. I believe that was an argument which troubled my noble friend Lord Hayhoe.
The main question I wish to put to my noble friend on the Front Bench concerns what I hope may be one aspect of HMSO's increased innovation and development, which my noble friend the Leader of the House rightly pointed out should flow from privatisation.
It is at the moment very difficult fully to understand your Lordships' proceedings as printed in Hansard for all our Committee, Report, and Third Reading debates. I say that because the Marshalled List and the groupings of amendments are not printed in Hansard. So if someone outside your Lordships' House just acquires Hansard—at a price which I agree with my noble friend should reduce after privatisation—but does not have those additional items, your Lordships' debates are, in parts, very difficult to follow. For instance, only the first amendment in a grouping is at the moment printed, and noble Lords do not always repeat their amendments when they come to speak to them.
I would like to use this opportunity briefly to pay tribute to the endless courtesy, accuracy and good humour of our Hansard writers and the Hansard office—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: They seem to make sense even of some of my own speeches in your Lordships' House and I have great confidence that they will manage to do so with this one.
I would have thought that with modern technology, to which my noble friend Lord Northesk referred, the additional printing is probably not all that expensive. I hope that my additional suggestion can be borne in mind and perhaps comprise part of the future service, which I have every confidence will be as good as the one we have received so far.
6.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, this has been a useful and lively debate on a subject which I well recognise to he of direct importance to your Lordships' House and another place. I listened carefully to all the views expressed and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. In particular, I wish to add my compliments to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on his maiden speech. Delivered so soon after his arrival in your Lordships' House, it is a happy foretaste of elegant and trenchant contributions from him to which we can look forward.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Howe: Listening to the debate today, I detected two principal themes in the concerns expressed about the Government's plans to put HMSO into the private sector; first, the need to do it in the first place and, secondly, once the process is taken forward, the mechanisms which might be put in place to safeguard the interests of Parliament and HMSO's employees.
The opening speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House took us through much of the terrain in detail and with clarity. I do not propose to repeat what he said. However, it is clear that there are matters on which your Lordships would welcome further elucidation and I shall do my best to provide it.
These days HMSO is not just, as it once was, a purchasing agent and a printer for Government. It is a substantial, multifarious, commercial enterprise, competing actively with the private sector in areas as diverse as IT procurement, the provision of own-brand contract stationery, the provision of all types of reprographic services and the supply to government and the public of a wide range of publication. Its turnover in 1995 is estimated at £375 million.
However, at the same time as it is gaining in efficiency terms, its core market, the central government market, is shrinking. It cannot trade generally with the private sector, being specifically prohibited from doing so, nor, even if that prohibition were to be lifted, could it do so in all equity as part of government. In those circumstances, HMSO, effectively underwritten by taxpayers in all that it did, would enjoy unacceptable competitive advantages while at the same time putting taxpayers' money at commercial risk.
The decision to privatise is therefore not in any way a product of dogma, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and others suggested. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin so eloquently argued, it is the natural and sensible consequence of a situation which sees a business trying its hardest to prosper and to compete fully with the private sector but which is unable to do so because it is constrained. It is constrained from seeking wider markets and constrained from being able to invest, to borrow or to expand its activities should it choose to, because of the artificial operating environment attendant upon public sector ownership.
In those circumstances, privatisation is the only remedy which will safeguard HMSO's business and the jobs which accompany it into the long term.

753
Furthermore, it is the one course which is in the best interests of customers and taxpayers because of the savings it is likely to facilitate. That has been proved time and again.
It is in the latter context in particular that your Lordships can find considerable reassurance on the questions which most closely affect this House. A more efficient Stationery Office able to spread its costs over a wider base will deliver better value to its customers. As a most prestigious customer of HMSO, as well as being a financially important one, Parliament is in an unrivalled position to insist through the contract which it enters into with its publisher and printer that cost savings resulting from privatisation should be reflected in the prices charged to the House and to the general public. We have already had a taste of what might be achievable. As my noble friend said at the outset, the price of Hansard has come down, after remaining unchanged since 1991, directly as a result of HMSO's internal efficiencies. My noble friend Lord Burnham remarked that in 1979 Hansard was priced at 45 pence. Yes, it was, but it was also very heavily subsidised, which is no longer true.
It is through a legally binding and enforceable contract that each House of Parliament can stipulate precisely the level of service it requires from its printer and publisher. Indeed, that applies to all customers of the privatised Stationery Office. Furthermore, the buyer of HMSO will have to be fully acceptable to Parliament before either House concludes a contract. The shortlist of bidders will be published.
However, the effective delivery of services to Parliament will not rest simply on legal obligations. No new owner will put at risk the relationship that he has with his most prestigious customer. He will wish to ensure that that customer remains a satisfied customer. Indeed, without the parliamentary work other business would be less secure and less efficiently executed, creating a greater risk of future job losses. It will be of key importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, entertained us all with his customary verve and style. I know that running through his amusing and discursive rhetoric he intended to make a serious point. However, I must say to him with all respect that rhetoric is no substitute for logical argument. He referred to HMSO as a proper appurtenance of the state. On what basis? He said that the Government were putting our civic traditions at risk. That, I suggest, is silly. We are talking about a Stationery Office; no more and no less.
I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. The noble Baroness was correct in saying that HMSO is a diverse business. It employs about 2,900 people across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. When HMSO's customers were freed from the tie to HMSO it did indeed have to win business. In order to do so, it had to improve efficiency and to reduce costs. It was inefficient and costly until the discipline of competition was brought to bear. HMSO is certainly not a lame duck as it stands, although I believe that its best days in the public sector
754
are probably over because the market is changing. But it may well become a lame duck if it stays in the public sector.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, compared HMSO with the Post Office and suggested that there was a way short of privatisation to bring the Stationery Office the benefits for which we are looking. The analogy with the Post Office is not sound. HMSO and the Post Office are different organisations, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding concisely argued, with quite different markets. The solutions to optimise their future must be tailored according to their circumstances and not according to dogma. I need hardly add that I am not here today to discuss the Post Office, but I can say that the solution for HMSO which we are here to debate is privatisation. As I said, that solution will give the best opportunities for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, asked why HMSO cannot be given more freedom in the public sector. I was surprised that he, of all people, with his long experience of government, should be asking that question. To allow HMSO carte blanche to borrow investment capital and take other commercial risks would overturn the public expenditure disciplines which quite properly exist to protect the taxpayer. That is the first point. At the same time, the fact that HMSO was ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer means that its competitors would rightly suspect unfair competition. It is worth observing that, as a trading fund, HMSO benefits from cheap national loan fund borrowing and from not having to pay corporation tax on its profits.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that there is no presumption that Next Steps agencies should remain in the public sector. All agencies are reviewed every five years to assess whether they should he abolished, privatised, contracted out or remain in the public sector.
Perhaps I may correct one factual part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He said that there had been staff reductions of 7 per cent. since 1990. In fact, during the past five years, staff reductions have been over 15 per cent. If one looks at the picture since 1980 when the staff numbered 6,300, the reduction amounts to about 60 per cent. over 15 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked what redundancies might be in prospect once privatisation takes place. I am sure that he will understand that no guarantees can be given as regards future staffing levels at the Stationery Office. However, in June 1994, the then chief executive warned that there could be further reductions of up to 30 per cent. That is the future in the public sector. While there may be reductions in the private sector, as I have argued, the long-term future will be more secure because of the opportunity to grow in wider markets.
I can say emphatically, in particular to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the past 16 years of Conservative government have made a thing of the past the difficulties arising from industrial disputes. My noble friend was absolutely right in what he said because, thanks to the policies of previous Conservative administrations, industrial relations problems are very much a thing of the past.

755
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord McNally, place stress on having further parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's proposals. There are two strands to that point: the first is the selection of the buyer; the second is the proposal itself. The Speaker in another place made clear to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy that the selection of a buyer is for the Government and not for the other place. The question for Parliament is with whom it should contract for its services and on what terms.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in particular, that the information memorandum will indeed be made available to your Lordships. This House will be treated the same as the other place. The Clerk to the Offices Committee will be sent a copy of the information memorandum when it is available. That will be a commercially sensitive document and there will need to be certain conditions attached to its handling. But I hope that that is some reassurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way because I wish to be clear about this matter. Is he telling the House that there will be no opportunity for this House to take a decision on the merits or otherwise of the Government's proposals and that we are limited to taking a decision on who should be the buyer and also the contract in relation to parliamentary papers? Is that what we shall be confined to? If so, I do not believe that he will find that acceptable on this side of the House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what I have said. As I mentioned, the question of parliamentary scrutiny has two strands. The second strand is the privatisation proposal itself.
Perhaps I may deal with something which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said before I directly answer the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to the Government's undertaking in 1990 to introduce primary legislation whenever a trading fund was to be privatised. I believe that he will have received an answer to the question on this subject which he raised in the debate in December from my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy, so he will already know the position. But, for the benefit of all your Lordships, perhaps I may say that the Trading Act will not be used to privatise HMSO. The undertaking in 1990 was given in a context when primary legislation was always required for privatisation for technical reasons associated with the terms on which civil servants would transfer to their new employment. Those shortcomings have been resolved and there is no need for primary legislation. The 1990 undertaking is not breached because it is simply not relevant.
The fact is that the House heard the Statement last month and has now had a debate. The question of privatisation is now for the Government while the question for the House is that of the contract for the supply of services.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as a new boy, I really am confused. However, I believe that the Minister's reply is no to the question put by the noble Lord,
756
Lord Richard, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and others as to whether the House is to have an opportunity to debate the matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my understanding is that there is no legal need for Parliament to vote on the matter. But, of course, Parliament and your Lordships' House are free to debate it again if that is decided through the usual channels. I am certainly not pre-empting such a decision.
The more fundamental point is that the Government want the best buyer to take forward successfully the Stationery Office. The House will want the best possible supplier of services. I suggest that it is right and proper for the Government and both Houses of Parliament to work in concert to see that their mutual objectives are attained.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was worried that after privatisation Parliament would no longer be able to call upon a Minister to explain the performance of HMSO. Ministers are accountable only for matters based on government policy. Day-to-day operational matters arc already quite properly the responsibility of the chief executive. There is little difference between that system and the appropriate representative of the privatised company being called to account by the House under its contract with the company. Private sector companies are quite used to such arrangements in their daily relationships. Indeed, the House already buys services from the private sector and I am not aware that the absence of a Minister to answer on the provision of those services has led to a poorer service. However, there would continue to be a Minister responsible for the residual HMSO which would, if the House and another place so wished, administer parliamentary copyright.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise for returning to this point but I am in a state of mild confusion. The discussion of the Offices Committee on this matter resulted in the laying down of a number of conditions which, in its view, would have to be met in order to ensure that the rights of this House were preserved. Is it being said that ultimately, there is not to be a debate in this House on the very question dealt with by the Offices Committee; namely, whether that which we are to be offered by the new private sector supplier of those services meets those conditions or not? Surely that is the least that we can ask for.
Earl Howe: My Lords, there could well be such a debate. As I said, I would not wish to pre-empt a decision of your Lordships through the usual channels to that effect.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Although I have heard only about half the speeches in the debate, I did hear that of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I understood him to say, not that there could be, but that there certainly would be, such a debate. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of backtracking going on. It ought to be absolutely clear-cut.

757
I should, perhaps, declare an interest as I too am a member of the Offices Committee. I was never in any doubt until this minute that we would debate the report of the Offices Committee on a Motion to be put before your Lordships. However, I now find myself astonished at the noble Earl's current replies. They do not correspond with anything I understood to be the case.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sorry for that fact. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was indeed present for the opening speech, but I did not see him in his place for the rest of the debate. It is a matter for the usual channels to decide. With great respect to my noble friend the Leader of the House, I must point out that he could not have given such an undertaking because it is not within his personal gift to do so. We are perfectly open on this side of the House to such a suggestion from the Benches opposite. We shall listen constructively to any proposals.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I expressed strong support for the Government's policy in this regard. However, in the course of my speech I said that it was enormously important that we achieved the safeguards spelt out in the report of the Offices Committee. It seems to me to be inconceivable that the Government could expect to proceed with the matter without giving the House the opportunity to have a yea or a nay as to whether or not the proposed terms are acceptable. I hope that my noble friend the Minister would feel able to give that undertaking.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I entirely take my noble friend's point. However, I return to the fact that it is a matter for the House to decide. Indeed, it is for your Lordships to decide.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I believe that the noble Earl is talking nonsense. When the Leader of the Opposition—and I take the same view as the noble Lord—says strongly to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that there must be a debate on the matter it is plain nonsense for the noble Earl, sitting alongside the Leader of the House and the Government spokesman, to say that a government undertaking cannot be given on the issue.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that the message has reached these Benches very loudly that there is a general desire in your Lordships' House for a debate to take place on the matter. That is no more and no less than I would have said earlier. Indeed, I am neither oblivious nor deaf to the proposals that have been made.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but, with the greatest of respect, the matter will go on until. we receive a little more satisfaction. I know that I am irritating the people who are participating in the next debate, but I believe that the Government must give the undertaking that they will provide time for a debate on the matter at the appropriate time. For heaven's sake, why on earth can they not do so? I thought that they had already agreed to do so half a dozen times. Indeed, they said so in another place. It seems to me that the Government must
758
be in a position tonight to satisfy the obvious desire of the House to have a debate on the matter when, if necessary, a vote can take place.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any distance at all between myself and the noble Lord. As I said, the House has expressed a wish to have further debate on the matter. I am sure that from our side of the House we have no objection to that at all. It is not within my personal gift to agree to it, but my noble friend the Leader of the House—and, indeed, the usual channels on all sides of the House—will no doubt decide the question after today's debate is concluded.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, a little earlier in his speech the noble Earl was kind enough to indicate that he disputed my account of the undertakings given to this House about the necessity for primary legislation before any of the Next Steps agencies were privatised. I should like to give the Minister notice that I intend to persist in my contention that the undertaking that was given ought to apply. The utmost pressure will be exerted through whatever channels necessary, either in this or the other place, to ensure that the Government honour obligations that were freely given.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord reads what I have said in Hansard. I was not in the least suggesting that the undertaking was not given; I was saying that it was no longer relevant because the law has changed and there is now no legal need for primary legislation.
I am aware that my time is slipping away, and I do not wish to detain your Lordships for longer than need be. Perhaps I may continue by saying that we have already begun consultations with the authorities here and in another place on the contractual and other safeguards which will be needed. We shall continue those consultations throughout the sale process. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has also given evidence in another place to the Finance and Services Select Committee on the sale, and, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, he would be happy to appear before other Select Committees as required. Parliamentary officials will advise the Government on Parliament's needs which will assist the Government in drawing up criteria for selecting a new owner and, indeed, in the choice of the new owner.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, asked what would happen if there were a future takeover following privatisation. I believe that there are several answers to that question, but the most powerful one is that the contract with this House can provide for termination in the event of a change of ownership. Given the importance of parliamentary business to the company, I suggest that that is a powerful deterrent.
My noble friend Lord Northesk identified one of the most interesting issues of the day in raising the question of the developing relationship between electronic and paper media. He was right to suggest that that is an important matter for the House. The Government already put information on to the Internet and the policy in that area is developing. However, Hansard is a matter

759
for your Lordships' House. Certainly the contract with the privatised business should allow the House to take advantage of any technological developments which offer benefit to the public interest.
My noble friend Lord Pearson asked whether editions of Hansard might include publishing our Committee, Report and Third Reading procedures, complete with a Marshalled List and amendment groupings for the day. At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that that is essentially a matter for the House authorities. If the material can be made available for printing at the appropriate time, I am advised that there would be no practical difficulty whatever to that suggestion; indeed, I am grateful to my noble friend for making it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked what was happening to the market testing of MoD business. The MoD is currently taking advice from consultants on future arrangements for its stationery and printing requirements. It is likely that the present agreement will be extended for a short period—that is, one or two years—so that the MoD can plan and execute a well-structured market test.
The noble Baroness also spoke about TUPE. I believe that the essence of what she said was that TUPE offers only vague and inadequate protection to employees, especially in respect of pensions. I do not accept that argument. Both the Government and likely bidders are well acquainted with implementing TUPE and ensuring that staff are treated fairly as a result. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I am most grateful, we must have the record straight. I should point out that TUPE does not cover pensions.
Earl Howe: Indeed, my Lords; I was about to say that the noble Baroness was perfectly right to say that pensions are not covered by TUPE. However, as she said, bidders will be required to offer staff a broadly comparable pension scheme, certified by the Government Actuary. The noble Baroness also asked what we meant by the phrase "broadly comparable". The Government Actuary will examine the buyer's pension scheme to ensure that, from an actuarial standpoint, it is broadly comparable. Of course, the Government Actuary is experienced in assessing such proposals. The assessment includes a comparison of the level of contributions and ensures that any increase in contributions is offset by compensation elsewhere in the package, for example, a salary rise. As regards TUPE, I must point out that staff cannot be worse off solely as a result of the transfer. That is the strongest protection that anyone could sensibly give.
HMSO has operated on a commercial basis from within government for many years. Its customers are perfectly well used to market testing its services and entering into formal agreements with it. Privatisation will not change that and the new business will be under the same imperatives to provide the best possible service and to keep all its customers satisfied. However, it will allow the business to capitalise fully on its reputation for quality and reliability and thus safeguard the future of a distinguished organisation.
760
The fundamental point which I must reiterate is that HMSO is in decline in the public sector. As long ago as June 1994, the then chief executive warned that up to 30 per cent. of the then current jobs would have to be lost. It is worth repeating what he also said; namely, that staffing levels critically depend upon the level of business that is won. But, as I have indicated, HMSO's core market is shrinking. To allow it unfettered freedom to seek new market opportunities underwritten by the public purse would be unfair to private sector businesses. But without such opportunities there is a real risk of a downward spiral in HMSO's fortunes with all that that means in terms of job losses despite HMSO's outstanding reputation and the undoubted dedication of its staff.
Retaining HMSO in government would only do one thing; it would jeopardise the future of the business and its staff and do them a gross disservice. That is not a route which commends itself to Her Majesty's Government. Privatisation is the only means of securing the best interests not only of the business and its staff but also of its customers and therefore the taxpayer too. I commend the Government's plans to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arbitration Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill represents the culmination of a great deal of work by a large number of people over several years. I will not delve too deeply into the history of the Bill but it was back in 1989 that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, in his capacity as chairman of the DTI's Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law, first recommended that the law on arbitration needed an overhaul. Work on a new Bill started first in the private sector and was taken over by my department in 1992. In February 1994 we issued a text for consultation which aimed to consolidate existing legislation with only relatively minor amendments. The message which came back was that a bolder approach was needed.
In November last year Lord Justice Saville took over the chairmanship of the advisory committee and accepted the challenge of working with my department and Parliamentary Counsel in preparing a text which more closely reflected the needs of the business and arbitration communities. I know that he has devoted countless long hours to work on the Bill over and above his judicial commitments. We owe him and members of his committee a special debt of gratitude. I should also like to thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mustill and Lord Steyn, the predecessors as chairman of the Advisory Committee, for their immensely valuable contributions.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if 1 outline some of the thinking behind the Bill. If noble Lords have read the definitive textbook on arbitration law by the noble

761
and learned Lord, Lord Mustill and Mr. Stewart Boyd QC, they will have come across in the first few pages the following words:
"Anyone coming for the first time into contact with an English arbitration, and wishing to acquaint himself with the relevant principles of law, might reasonably look to the current Arbitration Acts (those of 1950, 1975 and 1979) for a coherent exposition of the central principles of arbitration law. If so, he would be disappointed".
Those noble Lords who have looked at these Acts will readily agree. The very fact that the law is spread over three statutes is unhelpful and the language used is far from accessible to the layman. However, the problem goes deeper than that. The statutes do not seek to present a coherent picture but represent legislative reaction to particular issues as they have come up from time to time. We are simply failing in our duty to the business community to assist companies to resolve their disputes with the minimum of difficulty. I believe this Bill will bring about a significant improvement.
Our objective has been to set out a comprehensive and coherent statement of the principles and practice of arbitration in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Bill combines a restatement of the current statute law with codification of the more important principles of arbitration law developed through case law. It means that business people will have set out for them in a single document the key aspects of arbitration law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Without this Bill the present unsatisfactory situation could also have had serious repercussions for the future of London as a world centre for the arbitration of international commercial disputes. The business of arbitration is highly mobile in an international sense. A number of other countries have been making efforts to make their legislation more accessible to the business user. We must do the same if we are to safeguard the future competitiveness of London as a world arbitration centre.
Those noble Lords who have had an opportunity to take a look at the text will have been struck by the way it is presented. It follows a logical sequence. The language is clear and simple. Above all it is based on the proposition that arbitration is a valid alternative to litigation as a means of resolving those disputes which inevitably arise in trade and business. This is a significant step forward from the present position.
The principle of party autonomy is central to the Bill. The parties who are in dispute are able to decide how the arbitration should be conducted. The flexibility and control which this freedom gives to the parties is of critical importance. Having said that, the freedom is not absolute. There are a small number of provisions which for reasons of public policy cannot he overridden. We thought it right when looking at the current law on arbitration to propose to the House certain changes. These are designed to improve the attractiveness of arbitration to potential users. What they want is a system which is speedy and cost-effective, is final and fair at the same time.
We started from the principle that if parties have chosen arbitration rather than the courts to resolve their dispute, this decision must be respected. We propose
762
therefore to curtail the ability of the court to intervene in the arbitral process except where the assistance of the court is clearly necessary to move the arbitration forward or where there has been a manifest injustice. It is thus a deregulatory measure in that we are freeing up the process from unwarranted reference to the courts or unwanted interference by them. Intervention by the courts slows down the whole process, which inevitably adds to costs.
In framing the Bill we have tried as far as possible to reflect the format and provisions of the Model Law on Commercial Arbitration developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which is well known by its acronym of UNCITRAL. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, recommended in the report I mentioned at the start of my speech that it would be problematic to import that model law wholesale into the law of England and Wales. At the same time we accepted his advice that any new statute should incorporate as far as possible the structure and language of the model law.
Having outlined briefly the main principles on which the Bill is based it might be helpful if I mention some of the more important clauses. Clause 1 is important in that it sets out right at the start of the text the principles on which the Bill is based. Clause 2 is equally important in that it defines the scope of the Bill.
I would particularly draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 29. It confers immunity from suit upon arbitrators except where they act in bad faith. This is a new statutory provision. There has been considerable doubt whether, and if so to what extent, the immunity of arbitrators can be relied upon at English common law and we propose to put the matter beyond question. Your Lordships will see from Clause 74 that we intend also to extend limited immunity to arbitral and other institutions. Clause 33 provides a check and a balance on the powers of the arbitrators set out elsewhere in the Bill. Arbitrators must have their obligations under this clause at the forefront of their minds throughout the arbitration.
Clauses 34 and 38 break new ground in arbitration statute law by providing a non-exhaustive list of matters which the tribunal can decide and powers exercisable by the tribunal in the absence of agreement by the parties.
Clauses 46 to 58 deal with various aspects of the award of the tribunal. I draw your Lordships' attention to two changes we propose here. The first concerns Clause 49. At present a tribunal has the power only to award simple interest. We propose that the tribunal shall be able to award compound interest and simple interest at rates other than the judgment debt rate. The second concerns Clause 52, where we propose that the tribunal should be under an obligation to state the reasons for the award it has made. I contend that it is a basic rule of justice that those charged with determining the rights and obligations of others should give reasons for their decisions.
Clauses 59 to 65 deal with how costs of the arbitration are to be met. We have adopted the principle of "reasonableness". Only such costs as are

763
reasonable can be recovered. Clause 65 contains a new power to enable the tribunal to limit the recoverable costs of the arbitration. That is in keeping with our aim of making arbitration a cost-effective way of resolving disputes.
Clauses 66 to 71 cover the powers of the court in relation to the award. Clause 69 tightens the criteria which must be met before the court can grant leave to appeal on a point of law arising out of the award. At the same time we have removed from the Bill the restrictions placed upon the "special categories", as they have come to be known, to exclude the jurisdiction of the court.
Your Lordships will see from Clause 84 that we propose to make the new Act apply to all arbitration proceedings commenced on or after the day it comes into force regardless of when the arbitration agreement was made. That follows the precedent of previous Acts.
Part II provides for domestic arbitration agreements, and to make the Bill comprehensive we have restated at Clauses 89 to 93, without making any changes of law, the provisions of the Consumer Arbitration Agreements Act 1988.
Part III restates the New York convention of 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. That was given effect in our statute law by the Arbitration Act 1975.
I hope that that brief summary of the contents of the Bill has given your Lordships something of the flavour of the Bill. It will be apparent to all that it is a highly technical and complex draft. At the same time, I believe it to be a vital and important part of our commercial law.
Your Lordships will have observed that there is a Motion in my name, which will follow the conclusion of this Second Reading debate, that the Bill should he committed to a Special Public Bill Committee. The purpose of the proposal is to allow further views to be sought and to give your Lordships the opportunity to examine the matters carefully. I understand that a number of your Lordships have reservations about that. Perhaps we can leave that issue until the conclusion of the substance of the Bill in the Second Reading debate. However, may I indicate that if the Motion were to be agreed to, this would be the first time that the procedure has been used for a Bill other than those arising from recommendations of the Law Commission, a development which was recommended by the Procedure Committee and endorsed by your Lordships.
At this point in our proceedings I am concerned principally that UK competitiveness—not only of the arbitration community but of the business community generally—depends on our getting our arbitration law right. In the list of those to speak in this Second Reading debate there are experts in this matter. I look forward with the greatest of interest to those contributions and any observations that might be made on the procedure that we have it in mind to follow after the Second Reading.
764
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, this is an admirable, much-needed Bill. It is well designed and well drafted in a refreshingly lucid and open style, after full and effective consultation during a long period of gestation. The Bill's outstanding qualities are a tribute to the dedicated work done by an extraordinarily talented and experienced departmental advisory committee on arbitration law under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Saville and his predecessors, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mustill and Lord Steyn, working in close partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry. I most warmly congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Minister and his advisers on sponsoring the Bill. I am delighted that the Government have heeded the powerful plea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, made during the gracious Speech to introduce a measure which is readable, sensible and up to date. It will surely travel through the legislative process, by whatever procedure, speedily, free of friction, moving on oiled castors.
Since five noble and learned, and expert, noble Lords will participate in the debate, I shall be brief, even by the standards of an utter barrister.
The three general principles on which the Bill is rightly founded are of fundamental importance: first, to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense; secondly, to leave the parties free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest; and, thirdly, where an arbitration takes place in accordance with Part I of the Bill, confining judicial intervention to the circumstances prescribed in that part of the Bill. I welcome the fact that the general principles are set forth in Clause 1 as a useful aid to the proper understanding and interpretation of the Bill as a whole. They are principles which will surely enjoy universal support.
Speaking entirely for myself, and without having heard other noble Lords, I welcome the, fact that the Bill may be considered by a Special Public Bill Committee so as to allow evidence to be taken from experts on what is an important and complex Bill. However, I appreciate that the Bill has had a very long period of gestation and a huge amount of evidence will already have been taken into account.
I have one question about the first general principle. It refers to an impartial tribunal. However, unlike the guarantee in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it does not refer to an independent and impartial tribunal. I wonder whether that is right, and I have written to the noble and learned Lord the Minister seeking clarification.
I realise that most arbitrations under the Bill will be consensual arbitrations to which Article 6 of the Convention would not normally apply directly. I realise that the concept of independence overlaps to a substantial extent with the concept of impartiality. I also

765
realise that an award may be challenged before the independent and impartial courts in the circumstances prescribed by Clauses 67 to 71. My query relates principally to statutory arbitrations under Part H which may be compulsory in nature.
Where a statutory arbitration is compulsory and not consensual, it is clear from the case law that Article 6 of the Convention applies directly and that the arbitration tribunal must be independent as well as impartial. It must be independent of the executive and also of the parties. Its awards must be given effect by the Crown. I should therefore be grateful for guidance from the Minister as to the manner in which the first general principle, read with the provisions governing statutory compulsory arbitrations, complies with the guarantee of independence in Article 6 of the convention.
The arbitral process—the process by which a dispute is determined judicially and with binding effect by an arbitration tribunal instead of by a court of law—is of great importance and great value to the commercial community. The City of London is the natural home for international arbitration. We take justifiable pride in the integrity, efficiency and accessibility of the financial and legal services provided by the City of London. We also have the great benefit of judges, arbitrators, advocates and solicitors of outstandingly high quality. It must be in our national interests, as well as in the interests of the commercial community, that we make the very best use of those considerable assets.
Commercial arbitration is a consensual process. Foreign users of arbitration will choose this country as the forum only if they like the system and the way it works. I agree with the Minister that if London is to remain one of the pre-eminent centres for international commercial arbitration, in the face of strong competition from other countries, it is essential that the legal framework is simple, straightforward and user-friendly, serving the interests of the parties to commercial disputes.
I have consulted the Commercial Bar Association (COMBAR), which represents some 700 members of the Bar of England and Wales who specialise in commercial law, to discover their views about the Bill. I have done so because their members have vast experience, mainly as advocates, but also sometimes as arbitrators of a wide variety of commercial and other arbitrations. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Michael Collins QC, who chaired a COMBAR working party during the consultation process.
The members of COMBAR have no doubt of the pressing need for a new Arbitration Act. Many who have in the past written English arbitration into their contracts have become disenchanted with the cost, complexity and delay inherent in all but the simplest of arbitrations in England. If we are to remain one of the pre-eminent centres for international arbitration, a simpler, more straightforward, more user-friendly system has to be introduced as a matter of urgency.
COMBAR believes, and I agree with it, that the Bill will in large measure achieve those objectives. That is because in a number of areas much needed reforms have
766
been introduced and many anomalies that exist in the present law have been eradicated. It is because the logical structure of the model law has been adopted, while preserving the more important features of the present system which differentiate the English law of arbitration from its international counterparts. It is because the style and language employed are user-friendly and are designed to he understood by those unfamiliar with English arbitration law, and not only the regular user. It is because, in the words of the Minister, party autonomy has been given greater emphasis and importance than is the case under the existing law; and the supporting role of the courts has been limited only to those areas where it is really necessary that they become involved.
The enactment of the Bill is likely to bring much more business to London, provided always that those who operate within its framework ensure that the costs of arbitration are justifiable and competitive. The Bill will enable London to continue to be one of the principal international centres for arbitration and it will enhance its reputation. It may well become a model to be followed in other countries.
The Bill has been 10 years in gestation. It combines the best of our existing arbitration law with a number of innovative and far-reaching reforms. Practically every other major arbitration centre has recently reviewed, or is in the process of reviewing, its arbitration law. I believe that the combined effects of consolidation and innovation have been gathered together in the Bill in a logical and comprehensible form, in harmony with the cogent recommendations recently made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report entitled: Access to Justice. It is truly a Bill designed to take English arbitration into the 21st century. It deserves wholehearted support.
There is, however, one further point which relates back to the earlier debate on the future of HMSO and public access to parliamentary material which I think is relevant. In a number of Questions I have pressed the Government and the authorities of the House to promote widespread public access to parliamentary material covered by parliamentary copyright, including Bills such as the present one. As it happens, Lord Justice Saville spoke to me this morning and told me that the House authorities had refused his request that this Bill should be put on the Internet. He has authorised me to express his disappointment about that. I respectfully and strongly agree with him. The Bill is designed to make this part of the law more accessible and to encourage those abroad to arbitrate their disputes here. It is something which should surely be available to all by the most efficient, modern and cheapest means. Indeed, Lord Justice Saville finds it difficult to understand—and I share his mystification—how in a democratic society this (or indeed any piece of proposed legislation) should not be made available on the Internet.
The draft Bill has attracted worldwide interest and support which can do nothing but good for our country. But, in the words of the learned Lord Justice Saville,
"the same cannot be said for a failure to make it available by electronic means to all who would like to see it".

767
It is absurd that it is available without charge, as I understand it, in printed form, hut not available by electronic means, I suppose for Treasury-driven reasons. I very much hope that the powers that be might reconsider their decision. I fully appreciate that it has wider implications. I have unqualified support for the Bill hut I hope that it may be the first Bill to be put on the Internet and made widely available to an admiring world.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, in warmly welcoming the Bill, perhaps I should declare my interest as an occasional arbitrator and a past president of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
The Bill is an extremely important measure for a number of reasons. The administration of civil justice in this country is in the hands of a partnership between the public sector—the courts—and the private sector provided by arbitration. At least since the Second World War, that partnership has been wholly amicable and has been based upon mutual respect. The plain fact is that each sector requires the other. The capacity of the courts to deal with large numbers of civil disputes is distinctly limited. Without arbitration, the whole system would grind to a halt. On the other hand, arbitrators need the assistance of the courts for some purposes such as resolving disputes as to their appointment and the enforcement of their awards.
As has been pointed out, the Bill modernises and clarifies the law relating to arbitration. In addition, so far as possible it harmonises our law with the provisions of the UNCITRAL model law and emphasises the right of disputants to agree on how the arbitration should he conducted, and whether or not that accords with normal procedures. Both those features are of extreme importance, not only in themselves but in encouraging foreigners to use English arbitration for the resolution of international commercial disputes. This is and has been for some years a major export service industry which makes a significant contribution to our balance of payments. Much draft legislation coming before this House is, I am ashamed to say, ill thought out and requires extensive revision. Not so this Bill. It is based upon the detailed advice of an extremely expert advisory committee, chaired by my noble and learned friends Lord Mustill and Lord Steyn successively in earlier in times and currently by Lord Justice Saville. All those concerned, including in particular those I have named, are vastly experienced in commercial arbitration and arbitration generally.
I echo the tributes paid by the noble and learned Lord the Minister to all that they have done and all that members of the advisory committee have done. May I also pay special tribute to the extent to which the Bill is logically arranged and expressed in plain English. It is a joy to read. It also contains a notable innovation in that it employs bracketed cross-references between sections. I wish that the same practice had been adopted by the draftsman of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. At one stage I was completely puzzled as to how a particular section in Part I fitted into the scheme of the
768
Act. With gross irregularity, which I have never before revealed in public, I rang up the Department of Employment and asked them to search their wastepaper baskets to see whether they could find instructions to parliamentary counsel. They came up with the answer, whether from the wastepaper basket or not, and referred me to a section some 50 or 60 sections later and in a different part of the Act, suggesting that I might like to read the two sections together. When I did so, all was perfectly plain. If only it had had a bracketed cross-reference I should not have been forced into such an impropriety.
That is not to say that the Bill may not be capable of small improvements in Committee. But I emphasise that they would be very small indeed in the light of the enormous amount of work that has already gone into this Bill, and in the light of the expertise of the advisory committee and the context its members have with everybody who works in this industry. In those circumstances, I beg leave to doubt whether the right course is to send this Bill to a Special Public Bill Committee which would inevitably duplicate a vast amount of the work already undertaken by the advisory committee and possibly risk creating confusion where no confusion presently exists.
I said that one or two small amendments may be needed. I should like to mention one area which I think needs some slight further consideration. It turns on three clauses of the Bill: Clause 48, which gives arbitrators very wide powers to make declaratory awards and awards rectifying documents—powers which are in themselves very welcome; Clause 51, which provides for the arbitrator to make an agreed award when the parties settle their differences—again, a very welcome provision; and Clause 66, which enables the parties to obtain a judgment in terms of the award, subject only to obtaining leave—again, a provision with which I have no quarrel. While those powers in general terms are essential, one does want to look a little closely at the way in which they might be used.
I do not think that it should be possible to obtain a declaratory award as to the status of the parties—for example, whether X is married to Y or not; or whether A has a right of abode in the United) Kingdom. It is perfectly true that if you had an award in those terms, there is little doubt that the courts would refuse leave to turn it into a judgment.
In the field of rectification, the matter is a little less simple. Perhaps it is because I have a potentially criminal mind, restrained only by my professional upbringing, but it seems to me that there are intriguing possibilities for tax evasion using the machinery of an agreed award of rectification of contractual documents coupled with a judgment to the like effect. Both the arbitrator and the court might well be unaware that rectification was being used fraudulently as a means of creating an amended and backdated document which was more taxpayer friendly than the original. I am sure that some very small amendment could safeguard that position, and I understand that one is already under consideration.

769
May I repeat my warm welcome to this Bill and again express the hope that it will not be thrown back into the maelstrom of consultation.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, it was first brought home to me that there was a need to reform English arbitration law when I was in New York in the late 1970s. One day, in conversation with an American lawyer colleague, I received the comment that it was deemed to be an act of professional negligence in New York, and certainly in his practice, to include in a contract an English arbitration clause. So I remember very well being lucky in the ballot and opening a short debate here in May 1978 on the problems that were then adversely affecting the conduct of English arbitration proceedings. It is therefore very nice to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, who was then the presiding judge of the commercial court and chairman of the commercial court committee and who was the producer of such an excellent report in July 1978. That report was the forerunner of the Arbitration Act 1979, which was really the first step in our present arbitration law reform. It was interesting today to examine the contents of that report and to be reminded of the thoughts then upon arbitration reform.
It is also interesting to note that among the representatives of the Bar there was a Mr. M. J. Mustill QC, who was then a member of the noble and learned Lord's committee.
The gestation of further arbitration reform, and this Bill, has taken a little time—10 years, dating back to the DAC committee, or just over 17 years, dating back to the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill, as it then was in 1979, on 12th December 1978. I do not complain about the delay; we are all very grateful for its arrival, and we acknowledge the large amount of work that has been done by a lot of people in bringing it before the House. It is therefore very nice to be able to express thanks to members of the DAC committee, to Mr. Arthur Marriott and his group and to the current chairmen of the DAC committee, Lord Justice Saville, in their presence, all of whom have done us the honour of coming to hear our debate this afternoon.
I pay particular tribute to the courage of the DAC committee in redrafting the whole Bill after its first airing in King's College in July 1994—an occasion on which I believe I made myself slightly unpopular, though I hope only temporarily.
There is much in this Bill to be commended: the quality and clarity of the drafting, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, is a joy to read. In the quality of its drafting I believe it measures up to some of the great statutes at the end of the 19th century, the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 or the Sale of Goods Act 1893. It is splendid to read the clear statements of principle in Clause I of the Bill, where we find the words at the very beginning of the Bill setting out the clear principles under which our arbitration law is to be governed:
"the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense";
770
or to turn to the clear statement of principle in Clause 33 in relation to the conduct of arbitration proceedings:
"The tribunal shall … act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent";
or, turning to Clause 40 of the Bill:
"The parties shall do all things necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings".
It is good, too, to find the freedom in which arbitration tribunals are entitled to conduct proceedings before them. I refer to Clause 34(2)(f) of the Bill, where the arbitral tribunal is stated to be free,
"to apply strict rules of evidence (or any other rules) as to the admissibility, relevance or weight of any material (oral, written or other) sought to be tendered on any matters of fact or opinion, and the time, manner and form in which such material should be exchanged and presented".
It is good too that the treatment of the special category arbitrations has now been dropped. It was only intended as a temporary measure for two or three years and its time is rightly up. It is also good to find other good provisions in the Bill: the parties' rights to consolidate proceedings (Clause 35); and the new rights to award interest (Clause 49). The Bill has even changed those rather unfortunate words about the arbitrator "misconducting himself or the proceedings", when he had only committed technical misconduct which enabled certain steps to be taken against him under Section 23 of the Act. So now, in Clause 68, the much happier word "irregularity" is used. That in fact was the word recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, 17½ years ago in his Commercial Committee report.
But all is not perfect in the garden. To a degree, the drafting of the Bill has been overworked. The Bill has certainly grown in length. Part I of the Arbitration Act 1950 contains 34 sections or clauses; Part I of the draft Bill, which was presented to the conference in King's College in July 1995, contains 69 clauses; and Parts I and II of this Bill, which cover the same area, contain 101 clauses. Also, in places, it has succumbed to the particularity of drafting, which is the bane of so much parliamentary drafting. I shall first give a very slight example in Clause 24(4). In the draft Bill, Clause 21(4)—the part of the Bill that deals with the removal of the arbitrator—reads:
"Where the court removes an arbitrator it may give such directions as it thinks fit with respect to his entitlement (if any) to fees or expenses".
But when that clause came into the Bill—that is to say into Clause 24(4)—we find superfluous words being added at the end:
"or the repayment of any fees or expenses already paid".
That example of overdrafting is not so harmful, but it becomes more harmful when one deals with the issue of costs. In the draft Bill on the issue of costs the following phrases are to be found. In Clause 47(1) of the draft Bill:
"The parties are free to agree on the powers of the tribunal as regards the award of costs".
In Clause 47(4):
"The tribunal shall determine the costs of the arbitration and decide which of the parties should bear the costs or in what proportion the costs should be borne by the parties".

771
However, when one looks at the Bill as it is now before the House, there is a greater particularity of drafting, which I believe has unfortunate consequences.
It says in Clause 61(2):
"the tribunal shall award costs on the general principle that costs should follow the event except where it appears to the tribunal that in the circumstances this is not appropriate in relation to the whole or part of the costs".
The court's rule of costs following the event is not always a fair rule. Sometimes decisions are made marginally one way or the other and, even though the plaintiff may be found to be 51 per cent. right and the defendant to be 49 per cent. wrong, the court's rule following the event visits on the defendant the full burden of costs. Therefore, it is unfortunate that the arbitrators should have to start by following a rule which is not fair. I believe also that it is an error that their discretion should be thus fettered.
The matter becomes more serious when one examines the issue of security of costs. There can be seen in the draft Bill of last July in Clause 37(3) the following words:
"The tribunal may order a claimant (or counter-claimant) to provide security, of such description and on such terms as it may direct, for the legal or other costs of any party (including the fees and expenses of the arbitrators)".
However, when one comes to the matter of security of costs in the Bill, one finds in Clause 38(3) the following words:
"The tribunal may order a party to provide security for the costs of the arbitration wherever the court would have power (in proceedings before the court) to order a party to provide security for costs".
What does that mean? One has then to look at Order 23, Rule I of the Supreme Court Practice, where on application for costs the plaintiff is found to be ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction that is a ground for granting an order for security for costs. That is precisely the device which is used hostilely against a foreign plaintiff who may have a perfectly good case against an English defendant. Will not that measure alone deter overseas parties from coming to England or seeking an English arbitration seat for their arbitration?
I make one final plea, which relates to the different treatment in the Bill of domestic and international arbitrations. It relates to the stay of arbitration proceedings and the right to contract out by an exclusion agreement from court intervention upon determination of preliminary points of law under Clause 45 and appeals on points of law under Clause 69. The distinction only came about when we put into force in United Kingdom law the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards of 1958. We did that in the Arbitration Act of 1975. Then in the Arbitration Act of 1979 it was thought that the distinction should be extended to exclusion clauses. But at that time we were working our way through new arbitration reforms and the feeling was that, certainly for the present, we should leave domestic arbitrations and special category arbitrations still under the umbrella of the English courts.
But the question is whether that is any longer wise or sensible. Apart from any issue relating to breaches of Community law, what is the logic of that distinction,
772
with one set of rights for one category of parties and another set of rights for another category of parties? Perhaps I may take an example. In the United Kingdom, we have some very fine construction companies, one of whom so beautifully restored the canopy above us. Why should those companies be subject to one set of rules in a dispute with another English construction company and a different set of rules in a dispute with a European construction company? I venture to suggest that that is a matter at which the Special Public Bill Committee should look. I am very happy to commend the Bill to your Lordships but I ask the House to be ready to make a few amendments to it.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, like my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington, I ought perhaps to begin by declaring an interest. Since I retired, from time to time I have acted both in this country and abroad as an arbitrator. While I was still a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, at the request of a number of solicitors, I was made chairman of a body which they set up called the London International Arbitration Trust, whose purpose was to continue to attract work to London.
Having said that, perhaps I may respectfully echo every word of compliment that has been said to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for introducing the Bill and to my noble and learned friends Lord Mustill, Lord Steyn and Lord Justice Saville for the work that they have put in in producing a Bill which, if I may say so, is a masterpiece of drafting clarity and a model for future draftsmen. If only, in the past, what Lord Justice Harman once called "the marsh gas of Rent Acts" had been drafted with such skill, or some of the finance Acts had been drafted that way now, some of us would have had less trouble in trying to interpret the meaning of parliamentary language.
That said, perhaps I may raise one question of principle that has not yet been touched on. The Bill covers so much that it seems ungracious to criticise one omission. But I venture to suggest that it is an extremely serious omission; that is, the issue of confidentiality of everything to do with what happens relating to arbitration and awards.
Until recently I do not believe anybody would have thought of questioning in an English court the duty of confidentiality imposed by implication in contract upon arbitrators, umpires, counsel, solicitors and indeed the parties and witnesses. But two decisions were recently made in Australia. It is not for anybody in this country to criticise those decisions, but they are decisions which query the applicability of confidentiality.
Privacy and confidentiality have been assumed as a general principle in English commercial arbitrations for many years. Perhaps I may venture to quote words used recently by no less an authority than the former Warden of All Souls College Oxford, Sir Patrick Neill, in his Bernstein Lecture, when he said,
"it would be difficult to conceive of any greater threat to the success of English arbitration than the removal of the general principles of confidentiality and privacy".

773
I know that this issue has been considered by the committee of Lord Justice Saville, which decided in its wisdom to leave it alone. I respectfully question whether, in the light of those Australian decisions, that is wise. I quite see the difficulties. But surely it would be better to add to the statements of general principle, which are so clearly set out in the Bill, a general statement of principle that, unless the parties otherwise agree, the principles of confidentiality as long understood in English arbitration, should apply to all arbitrations to which this Act applies.
I realise that that is general language. I am not attempting to draft specifically—it would be silly to try to do that on one's feet in a Second Reading debate. But the problem exists and I am nervous that, unless it is dealt with, someone will come along afterwards and invite the courts to waive the issue of confidentiality because those Australian cases should be applied here.
Those of us who have dealt with a number of highly confidential arbitrations in recent years cannot fail to be conscious of the importance of confidentiality. Many of us have been involved in cases, the result of which could affect share prices, commodity prices and heaven knows what. I venture to add that my own six years' experience as chairman of the Take-over Panel Appeal Committee led me to realise the crucial importance of observing utmost secrecy and confidentiality.
Your Lordships may remember the old hymn warning Christians to beware of the hordes of Midian who prowl and prowl around. The hordes who now prowl around looking for leaks and hints do not necessarily come from Midian any longer, but they are and can be a great danger. They can give rise to leaks, suggestions of insider-dealing and all sorts of problems. This is an issue of principle which should be faced whether the Bill goes to the suggested committee or the Committee stage takes place on the Floor of the House.
Once again I venture to say that everybody concerned is to be congratulated. I hope it is not out of place—I remembered this with a nasty shock when I was reading the Bill over the past two or three days—to say that it is 61 years since I was first involved in an arbitration as a newly-called barrister. So far as I remember, the fee was one guinea. It would be rather different nowadays but the arbitration was very short.
I make my comments in the light of my experience of arbitration work as a barrister, as a judge in charge of the commercial list and, since I retired, as an arbitrator and in other capacities. If it were said, on the question of confidentiality, that there is no precedent for this, I would venture to invite your Lordships to recall that this Bill preserves in the second schedule the provision for a judicial arbitrator. That was introduced in 1970 or perhaps a little before.
People today may not be aware of what led to that provision. Lord Goddard, when he was Lord Chancellor, with the enthusiastic approval of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, and the then commercial judges, of whom I was one, were faced with criticism from the City that they would not use the Commercial Court because of the necessity of disclosing commercial
774
confidential information. Lord Gardiner suggested that provision should be made for the commercial judge to sit in private, in camera. That passed through your Lordships' House but failed in another place. The then Opposition managed to knock it out on a majority of those who thought that no court ought ever to sit in private.
The present provision was a substitute. It has been little used because of the difficulty which successive Lord Chief Justices have had in finding a judge to release to conduct arbitrations. But the principle of confidentiality lies behind the provision. It was accepted by Parliament then and there is no reason, whatever words are used, why it should not be used now.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Byron: My Lords, I ought also to declare an interest. I have once or twice been appointed as an arbitrator myself, though primarily my interest in the Bill is as a practising solicitor in the field of international trade.
A few months ago I was in Italy trying to settle a dispute between my German client and an Italian company. If one asks what an English solicitor was doing in a dispute between a German and Italian company, your Lordships may not be surprised to learn that the contract was in the English language; it was subject to English law and also to London arbitration. Having successfully concluded a settlement, we all retired to a restaurant and began discussing the role of English law and English arbitration.
My German client said, "I suppose it is strange that we should still use London arbitration; after all, you don't build many ships now; you are no longer dominant in world trade and we do not buy many televisions or computers from you". My Italian opponent chipped in, "And we don't think much of your food either". However, they both agreed that when it came to the law and to our courts and arbitration systems, they both had a great deal of confidence in us. Lest your Lordships think that this story suggests complacency, I should add that they did not find everything in the garden rosy. There were aspects of our system which they did not like and there were familiar complaints about delay and expense which are never far beneath the surface.
The point of my story is to re-emphasise the central place that English arbitration has in the resolution of disputes, particularly in the international field. Not only is dispute resolution in the City of London a major industry and major earner of foreign currency, but it is also a vital lubricant to other forms of commerce.
There is no doubt that government have an important role in keeping the wheels well oiled. A few years ago many of us became concerned that congestion in the Commercial Court could jeopardise London's reputation. I am glad that that problem seems to have been remedied. I should like therefore to congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill and to thank my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench for the remarks he made in introducing it.

775
However, it should not be forgotten that the Bill has its genesis as a private venture, although I have no doubt that it would not have reached this stage by now if it had not been taken over by the departmental advisory committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill. Indeed, I should like to pay a special tribute to the noble and learned Lord for everything that he has done, both in relation to this Bill and in relation to the cause of arbitration generally. I should also like to pay tribute to his successor on the departmental advisory committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and in particular to the present chairman of that committee, Lord Justice Saville. I do not know whether there are many other precedents of a serving Lord Justice of Appeal taking a major role in drafting legislation; but all I can say is, if this is going to be the result, let us have it more often; that is, if the system and my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will permit it.
A year or two ago I was asked to write an article for Lloyd's List newspaper on the then draft Arbitration Bill and I began by saying that Lord Justice Saville, who at that time was just about to take over chairmanship of the DAC, had an unenviable task. But there is no doubt that he and his committee have achieved a startling transformation from the earlier draft which, while admirable in many ways, was also in some respects a rather cumbersome consolidation Bill. This is now a model of clarity and contains a number of important changes and innovations in English arbitral law.
Although London is still the leading world centre for arbitration there are plenty of competitors only too anxious to attract arbitrations to their own jurisdictions. It is now more than 10 years since the UNCITRAI, Model Law was introduced and adopted by a number of countries without this country doing anything to improve its statutory framework except for the odd change here and there. It has been widely perceived in the commercial and legal communities where arbitration is used that unless something was done fairly quickly London's position could be seriously eroded.
Turning to the Bill itself, as has already been said, the great theme running through it is the principle of party autonomy. But party autonomy is all very well when the parties have either agreed expressly or by the incorporation of a set of standard terms as to how a particular matter should be dealt with. In reality there are a great many instances where that is not the case and once an arbitration has started it is often difficult for the parties to agree on anything at all. Indeed, the extent to which arbitration inevitably becomes a process similar to litigation is a point often overlooked or misunderstood by academic commentators. Because arbitration is consensual in origin it seems to be imagined that the whole process takes place in an atmosphere of co-operation, where agreements are easy to obtain. In reality arbitrations can become a pitched battle where agreement, even on relatively straightforward matters, is difficult to obtain.
The great balancing act which this Bill has had to perform is between those who wish to exclude the courts from all aspects of arbitration procedure and those who would like to preserve a significant measure of court
776
supervision. Generally I believe that this Bill has got that balancing act about right. When it comes to the question of appeal the so-called Nema guidelines have been enacted, although there seems to have been some further tightening of the appeal process. I am a little troubled by the additional provision in Clause 69(3)(d) that,
"despite the agreement of the parties to resolve the matter by arbitration, it is just and proper in all the circumstances for the court to determine the question".
One can well understand the thinking behind those words, but I wonder whether it is sensible to introduce a new and rather subjective concept into what is otherwise well trodden ground.
I do not think this is the right time to raise particular hobby horses of our own. It is a quite radical Bill. It contains a great many changes to the way we do things at present. Some of those changes are very obvious; some of them are quite subtle. Above all it allows the parties to agree to almost any procedure they like without interference from the courts. I doubt whether it has been widely appreciated quite how far reaching this may be. I assume that the parties will be deemed to have agreed to something if they have agreed to arbitrate pursuant to a set of rules which contain that provision. I suspect that every arbitral body will now wish to reconsider its own rules. I am sure that once the Bill has been enacted all arbitral bodies will do that to see what special rules or special powers may be suitable for their particular users. While this has great benefits in terms of flexibility, those who seek to arbitrate will need to take care that they know exactly what they are letting themselves in for.
There is one point I would like to make in relation to what is, I think everyone agrees, a quite exceptionally good Bill. It relates to the question of a sole arbitrator. English law has always provided that a simple reference to "Arbitration London"—that is by no means unusual—is deemed to be a reference to a sole arbitrator. This provision seems to have been kept in Clause 15 of the Bill. I know that two organisations with which I am involved—the British Maritime Law Association and the London Maritime Arbitrators Association—made submissions suggesting that a simple reference to arbitration should be deemed to be a reference to three arbitrators. This is the approach in Article 10 of the model law. While I am not an uncritical fan of the model law I think that on this occasion the model law is to be preferred. I wonder why the various representations on that point could not be accepted.
Finally, I should like to echo what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, in relation to confidentiality. Sometimes people try to compare litigating in the commercial court and arbitrating and they wonder what is the advantage, one over the other. But the one point which is always mentioned in relation to arbitration—perhaps it is the only point on which everyone is agreed that arbitration has a potential benefit—is confidentiality. It is quite arguable that arbitration would almost be lost or would go out of the window—people would not bother with it—if confidentiality was lost. I am not sure what the right

777
answer is here but I would echo the words of the noble and learned Lord that if there is any doubt about it the matter should be revisited.
This is undoubtedly an excellent Bill. I welcome it. I hope it has a speedy passage toward the statute hook.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should not have thought of troubling your Lordships in the presence of so many much brighter luminaries than myself with any observations on this Bill were it not that I owe the Government a debt of gratitude. The Bill was not in the Queen's Speech for the legislative programme of this Session and I did, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was kind enough to mention, suggest in the debate on the Address that this was an important Bill for which the Government might, one hoped, find a place in their programme. I am therefore more than delighted that so soon after the start of the Session, in prime time as one may say, this Bill has been brought forward with the support of the Government and of the noble and learned Lord.
It is indeed, as has been said by many noble Lords, an important Bill from two aspects. I venture to restate them in the hope of attracting the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, whom I know, as an economist, is somewhat less than enthusiastic about purely dry legal instruments. There is first the point that it is an essential piece in our legal system and must he capable of being used not only by lawyers in the interests of lawyers but by laymen. Many laymen have to participate in arbitrations and many arbitrations are conducted by people who are not lawyers. It is therefore absolutely essential that any arbitration law should be user friendly to the maximum extent. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nodded his head when emphasis was placed by one of your Lordships on the extreme readability and intelligibility of the Bill.
The second aspect has already been touched on very brilliantly by the noble Lord, Lord Byron, who has just spoken, and that is the need for a good arbitration system to be there in the way of lubricating trade. It is an extraordinary fact, referred to by the noble Lord, that with an out-of-date, cumbrous, defective and piecemeal arbitration law such as we have—it was improved in 1979, but these points remain valid—so many people with no connection with this country at all should have been willing to entrust their disputes to settlement by arbitration in this country. That tendency is undoubtedly bound to be increased by this Bill if, as I believe it does, it complies with the wishes of traders, using that word in its very widest sense, and businessmen generally through placing such emphasis as it does on the will of the parties.
That runs throughout the Bill. It is stated in Clause 1 at the beginning as one of the objectives of the Bill. All the way through the Bill one finds references to "unless the parties otherwise agree" or "as the parties otherwise agree". Nobody can say that this Bill does not give maximum effect, in spite of a few mandatory provisions, to the will of the parties.
778
Since I so heartily welcome this Bill and agree with its provisions, I do not propose to comment in any detail on it. I would like to dwell for a moment on one point to which I personally attach some importance. That is the relation between arbitration and the courts. I have never taken the view that arbitration is a kind of annex, appendix or poor relation to court proceedings. I have always wished to see arbitration, as far as possible, and subject to statutory guidelines no doubt, regarded as a freestanding system, free to settle its own procedure and free to develop its own substantive law—yes. its substantive law. I have always hoped to see arbitration law moving in that direction. That is not the position generally which has been taken by English law, which adopts a broadly supervisory attitude, giving substantial powers to the court of correction and otherwise, and not really defining with any exactitude the relative positions of the arbitrators and the courts.
Other countries adopt a different attitude and so does the UNCITRAL model law. The difference between our system and that of others has been and is, I believe, quite a substantial deterrent to people to sending arbitrations here. The noble Lord's Italian and German friends brought that point out very well.
How then does this Bill stand in that respect? After reading the debates and the various drafts that have been moving from one point to another, I find that on the whole, although not going quite as far as I should personally like, it has moved very substantially in this direction. It has given to the court only those essential powers which I believe the court should have; that is, rendering assistance when the arbitrators cannot act in the way of enforcement or procedural steps, or, alternatively, in the direction of correcting very fundamental errors.
What this Bill does is stated in Clause 1, the objective clause. It states that, in matters governed by Part I no intervention except as provided shall be made by the court. In effect that reflects Article 5 of the model law and excludes any further reliance on common law. The body of the Bill in Part I continues to give paramountcy to the will of the parties unless they otherwise agree. Clause 34 is extremely valuable and gives effect to the best institutional practices. Other examples are easy to find.
The problem of exclusion clauses and special categories, which I need not expand in this company, has been very adroitly solved by the Bill. It might perhaps have been a little less complex and prescriptive, but in general I believe that the Bill is well balanced, very intelligible and reflective of modern needs.
There is one other point I wish to make which relates to the matter raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington. Many noble Lords have commented on the vast amount of research work and inquiry which has been done in this country since the monumental report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mustill in 1989. The noble and learned Lord knows about this perfectly well without my having to enumerate it. The department has worked very hard, with the assistance of all those people to whom tribute has been justly paid.

779
But the matter does not even stop there. My noble and learned friend Lord Mustill and I were both present, in different capacities, in Vienna about 10 years ago when the UNCITRAL model law was being drawn up in its final stages. That had been preceded by years of deliberation and consultation all around the international world, with British lawyers, including my noble and learned friend, being consulted. So the history goes hack even further than the report of my noble and learned friend in 1989. It goes back more than a decade. We have all the benefit of that behind us. We must not lose that benefit by reopening difficult questions.
It was with a little misgiving that I saw on the Order Paper the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord to commit this matter to a Special Public Bill Committee, which would involve the taking of evidence and the opening of many questions which have been settled with difficulty, but still settled. With the utmost deference, I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he might, if other speakers from these Benches agree with what I said and with what the noble Lord has said, he willing to defer his Motion on the Order Paper for a little further consideration. One day next week perhaps he could then come forward with a Motion, either in the form of that on the Order Paper or in the form of a normal Motion that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. This is rather a different case to that of Law Commission Bills which come from a non-governmental body. This Bill has been under consideration by a powerful department of state with all the resources available to it. Since the Bill has got very great agreement in most laudatory terms, with only a few unweighty points, which could perfectly well be dealt with on the Floor of this House, the noble and learned Lord might think it wise to give further consideration to that particular part of today's proceedings. Of course, I heartily support the Second Reading of the Bill.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Noel-Buxton: My Lords, I give strong support to the Bill. As a commercial solicitor, although not currently in practice, I have had considerable experience of litigation. Litigation as a way of resolving disputes is often unfair, very slow and cost-ineffective. I have recently taken an interest in arbitration as an alternative to litigation. In my view arbitration can indeed be a fairer, more speedy and more cost-effective way of resolving disputes. A Bill to improve arbitration as an option in dispute resolution in these respects deserves strong support accordingly.
I would like to see arbitration recognised by the entire business world as a viable alternative to litigation. Arbitration can provide a cheap, speedy and cost-effective Method of resolving disputes. Further, arbitration is private. It is particularly suited where a dispute arises between parties who have a continuing relationship which neither wishes to prejudice.
More generally, it must surely he desirable, if London in particular is to continue to he a leading centre for arbitration, even for disputes which have no other connection with London, and is to maintain its position
780
as an important financial and commercial centre, that England and Wales have an arbitration law suited to modern conditions and to the international needs of businessmen.
I welcome the Bill because it addresses the matters to which I refer. The Bill will streamline the arbitration procedure by further restricting the ability of a party to prolong proceedings by seeking a recourse to the courts both during the hearing and after the award has been given. The Bill extends the autonomy of the parties in establishing an arbitration procedure suited to their needs. It clarifies many important technical issues of law previously unresolved and it provides a more user-friendly code which for the first time makes arbitration both accessible and understandable.
The Bill would also bring the laws of England and Wales closer to the laws of those countries, including Scotland, which have adopted the United Nations model law on arbitration. The Bill deals with a form of dispute resolution founded on the agreement of those concerned. That the agreement itself should form the main basis of the general principles of any statutory framework has been recognised by the draftsman. It is the basis, after all, of the United Nations model law. However, like most general principles, that concept—the so-called party autonomy or contractual, as contrasted with the juridical, theory of arbitration—is easier to state in the abstract than to apply to specific legislation.
In my view, the Bill in general well states the party autonomy concept in specific legislative terms without going too far. I am pleased to note that in the Bill before your Lordships today Clause 34(l) now reads:
"It shall be for the tribunal to decide all procedural and evidential matters",
albeit that that is qualified by the words,
"subject to the right of the parties to agree any matter"
whatever that may mean in practice. I believe that tribunals should he in charge in these matters and not the parties as seemed to he contemplated in an earlier draft of the subsection.
I like the tenor of Clause 5 headed "Agreements to be in writing", which seeks in effect to expand the usual meaning of the phrase "in writing" and the definition of arbitration agreements in Clause 6. I suspect, however, that the exact wording of those clauses—and, indeed, of others in the Bill—will be considered in detail at later stages, but not in too much detail because, as many noble Lords have said, the drafting is impeccable.
As I understand it, an agreement is in writing if it is inter alia evidenced in writing, which includes it being recorded by any means. Would a tape recording of a meeting between the parties, recorded by one party with the acquiescence of but without the formal authority of the other or others, during which it was orally agreed to include an arbitration clause in common form, be a sufficient agreement in writing? Would Clause 5(4) bite? Would the word "submit" or a phrase something like "submit any dispute to arbitration" have to be uttered to fall within Clause 6? I wonder.
I also like the substitution of the phrase "is obviously wrong" in Clause 69(3)(c) which deals with an appeal on point of law for the phrase,

781
"has in all probability reached the wrong conclusion on the question of law",
contained in the previous draft. If the contractual theory of arbitration is to be substantially followed, any right to appeal to the court should indeed be subject to robust restriction.
Turning away from the specifics of the Bill, I should like to see arbitration become far more widespread as a means of dispute resolution. Although I have no direct experience of arbitration, I understand that it is widely adopted only in relation to building contracts, maritime matters and certain other rather specialised contractual arrangements. In my experience, it is not adopted in England and Wales in the fields of intellectual property, insolvency, or for general company or commercial disputes in relation to warranties and indemnities given in connection with the sale and purchase of shares in companies.
When I was in practice in the company, commercial and intellectual property fields, I must confess that I tended to advise clients not to include an arbitration clause in their contracts. I feared that any time and money spent on pursuing arbitration would more likely than not be a waste of time and money because the party against whom a tribunal found would only appeal to the court, so one might as well start with the court.
I believe that that perception of arbitration by many lawyers, somewhat misconceived as it is already, would he much less tenable if this Bill became law substantially as drafted. If commercial lawyers in particular recognised the undoubted merits of arbitration as an option—an option that I hope will be enhanced by the passage of the Bill into law—perhaps they will more frequently draw their clients' attention to arbitration as a potentially quicker and cheaper private route to commercial dispute resolution than that afforded by litigation.
If arbitration clauses were more widely included in contracts or if arbitration agreements were more widely entered into when a dispute arises, surely much of the pressure on the commercial court in particular could be released and one might even see more win/win resolutions in commercial disputes effected in private behind closed doors rather than the inevitable win/lose resolution of disputes fought out in open court. As I said, I welcome the Bill and give it my strong general support.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Mustill: My Lords, in offering a hearty welcome to the Bill, I will not occupy time by repeating what has already been said so cogently by the noble and learned Lord the Minister and the noble Lords who have followed. I will simply emphasise two points, add two acknowledgments and make one disclaimer.
The first point is that England must have a new Arbitration Act. Literally for centuries the arbitration statutes of England and Wales led the world. Paradoxically, one of their strengths was their incompleteness, which left room for the development of flexible and diverse procedures, and allowed the judges
782
to respond to practical problems in the interstices of the Acts. So far so good, but as with all judge-made law you need skill and experience to find it, and to understand it when found. By now the judge-made law has become so voluminous as to be almost impenetrable to anyone except the specialist English lawyer. That is splendid for the authors of textbooks, but not for anyone else. English arbitration law is, I believe, basically sound, but it needs to be made accessible to its users, including its very substantial foreign client base. That can be done only by a complete springclean in the shape of a comprehensive new Act.
There is another reason why we must have a new Act. Throughout the long debates on the development of the UNCITRAL model law, at which I had the honour to be one of those speaking for the United Kingdom and to which my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce added his unique authority, it was the consistent stance of the United Kingdom that the project was worthy of full support. That view was honestly held and remains so today. For countries with no established and elaborated fund of arbitration law and practice, the model law offers an excellent means of obtaining a ready-made and internationally recognised partial code of arbitration law. But for reasons unnecessary now to describe, the departmental advisory committee felt that it was not appropriate for the UK, and recommended that there should not be a simple enactment of the model law for England and Wales, but that instead there should be a comprehensive new statute, reflecting the existing law of England, but nevertheless following as closely as possible the shape and language of the model law.
That proposal, put forward seven years ago, was intended as a package, but for rather a long time it seemed that only half of the package would be adopted, and that the UK, having supported the model law publicly, would neither enact it nor put anything in its place. To some foreign observers that seemed, if not an example of perfide Albion, at least a display of the Luddite tendency which critics have liked to attribute to our arbitration law. That could not be allowed to continue, and, more importantly, this country simply could not afford to leave its statute law in a condition which was acknowledged to be out of date and which was rapidly being overtaken by new laws in other countries.
Happily we are, I hope, well on the way towards a new Act of the kind contemplated by the departmental committee. That leads to my second point; namely, that we must have this Arbitration Act. It is a quite outstanding piece of draftsmanship, and an outstanding work of scholarship. True, it is long, but it is ambitious and all-embracing, in marked contrast to the meagre and inadequate legislation which it is designed to supplant: and also in contrast with the model law which, for all its merits, covers only some of the legal aspects of arbitration. It is not surprising that the Bill is more elaborate than both.
The Bill combines thoroughness and accuracy in all its contents, with remarkable felicity and clarity of expression. For the first time, a user or potential user, whether in England or abroad, will be able to take up the statute and find what he needs to know about the

783
structures and methods of English arbitration law. Anyone familiar with the model law will, I believe, be completely at home with the new text.
Moreover, the Bill is the fruit of what must be an unprecedented degree of public consultation, at least in the field of international commercial law. It is a consultation which has extended far beyond our geographical boundaries. I would respectfully congratulate the Minister and his department on having enterprised and carried through that onerous task. After that consultation, we must now forge ahead. That is not to say that I agree with everything in the Bill. I do not, but will rest content to follow what I believe to be the majority opinions of those who really matter; namely, the users.
I earnestly hope that any noble Lords who may have substantial rather than technical reservations on certain aspects of the Bill will feel able to submerge their own opinions in the interests of bringing this excellent work speedily to the statute book.
As a member of the Procedure Committee of this House, a keen proponent of the procedure by Special Bill Committee, I should think it inappropriate to express a personal opinion on the species of Committee to which the Bill should be remitted, beyond respectfully agreeing with previous speakers that the matter could profitably be given another look.
No doubt changes will be made consequent upon the debates in Committee, but I should be surprised and disappointed if there were any resulting amendments of major effect. At all events, I believe that the philosophy, shape, language, and substance of the Bill arc basically sound, and I hope that the House will give it a following wind of gale force strength.
It remains to add two names to those whose contributions have already been generously acknowledged. As the Minister has said, the Bill is the fruit of consecutive efforts by both the private and the public sector. They were not without their squalls and shoals, but those have been successfully navigated. The first stage of this distinctly unusual process would never have happened without the energy, hard work and financial support of Mr. Arthur Marriott and his working group, to whom tribute has already been paid. I should like in particular to stress the contribution of Mr. Basil Eckersley of counsel who produced for that group an impressive draft Bill. In the event, that draft did not go forward, but it encouraged all future workers by showing that the job proposed by the departmental committee could be done and done well.
Finally, I know that all those involved in the great efforts made after Mr. Marriott's group had handed over the baton would like the House to be aware of the invaluable assistance given to those already mentioned by Mr. Toby Landau of counsel, whose encyclopaedic grasp of this complex subject has excited the respect of all.
I add one disclaimer. I am proud to be the current president of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. It has a very large membership, and encompasses a wide variety of views, often vigorously expressed. I have no
784
mandate to speak for the institute. The views offered are my own. I warmly welcome the Bill, and congratulate all those concerned in it.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I too, like some of my retired judicial brothers, must start with a disclosure, although I do it with no diffidence at all, but with marked enthusiasm. I am engaged in a number of arbitrations. I shall be sitting as an arbitrator next week. I am involved in a new organisation called the City Disputes Panel which involves arbitration and evaluation, which is a new process, by a number of judicial figures, supported by experts from the City.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has some ammunition saved up on the basis that that is a very attractive way of keeping the wolf from the door, but I should like to say that I enjoy it for other reasons. For 14 years, until I retired, I listened to no witnesses. All my work was then appellate work. There was only one exception during that 14-year period when I was sitting in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), chaired by a very senior judge. We had, rather inadvisedly, allowed in fresh evidence. As I listened to the unimpressive material then being provided by the witness, I received a note from the very experienced presiding judge, which read:
"Isn't it nice to hear a real live liar again?"
The speakers' list discloses that there could be provided a full complement for the Appellate Committee. We have, including myself, four Law Lords, present and past, and the benefit of the former Master of the Rolls. Therefore I could quite properly merely say, "I agree, and have nothing to add". Certainly as the judicial long stop on this list I should avoid causing your Lordships to stop long on my behalf, but I should like to make one or two short points.
My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has referred to the readability of the Bill. That is terribly important, because there are many, many lay arbitrators in the domestic field in this country. That is particularly so with regard to the construction and the commercial real estate industry. For them to have available the relevant law, easily assimilable, is a tremendous advantage. Of course it will add to our invisible earnings by making this readable by those from overseas who had difficulty in the past. That is a great advantage, but that is not the sole advantage.
Clause 1 sets out the three principles. I suggest that the draftsman and those involved in the Bill have ensured that those three principles are realisable by the provisions they have made in the Bill. Unnecessary delay should be avoided, and they have set out a number of provisions which prevent technical points or delay through failure to comply with orders any longer holding up proceedings.
Expense, which they wish to keep down, can be achieved effectively in an arbitration only by speeding up the process and if more autonomy is given to the arbitrator. If there is a greater degree of interactivity between the parties, their legal advisers and the arbitrators the speeding up will occur. Short time limits

785
can be laid down and enforced. In an international commercial arbitration in which I was involved the parties agreed that they would each have only one day during which they would call or cross-examine the witnesses and make their speeches. Courteously, they allowed one day for the tribunal to ask its questions. We on the tribunal did not need to ask any questions but they needed longer time and they had the extra day which had been allocated to us. The whole hearing was over in three days.
I wish to add the following to the tributes which have been paid. First, the parliamentary draftsman, Mr. Geoffrey Sellers, has played an enormous part in making the Bill as accessible and intelligible as he has. There are two others involved; Professor Uff, QC, and Dr. Julian Lew were instrumental in arranging a highly successful conference recently when views in regard to the draft were discussed at length. A great deal was achieved.
Finally, I take the same view as that which has been put forward by my noble and learned friends Lord Donaldson and Lord Wilberforce; that, in view of the near unanimity on a Bill whose clarity has been praised to the rooftops, to allocate it to the Public Bill procedure would involve a great waste of time and may breathe into the discussion complications which should not exist and which would not occur if the matter were taken on the Floor of the House.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have the distinction, or lack of distinction, of being the only non-lawyer taking part in your Lordships' debate. Furthermore, I have no interests to declare. I say that with regret because, having listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I gather that there is quite a decent income to be earned in this area of activity.
My heart sank when I was told that this was a DTI Bill and that it was my responsibility to deal with it for the Opposition. However, I was mistaken in my view. I have done a lot of work in preparation for the Bill and I have become fascinated by the subject of arbitration. I hasten to add that at this late hour I shall not cover everything that now exercises my mind on the subject. I shall return to many of the topics in which I have become interested when your Lordships sit as a Committee.
I have learnt a great deal in preparing for the debate. I must confess that until recently I had never heard of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Since we have the current president and the former president with us tonight I must apologise to them and to their chartered institute. I did not know at all of the existence of what my advisers have referred to as the arbitral institutions or of something called the arbitral community. I can go further. I had never seen the word "arbitral" until the end of last year and tonight is the first time the word has ever passed my lips. I have to say that it is not a word I like and I am not sure that once we have finished the Bill I shall ever allow it to pass my lips again.
786
There is an economic side to all this; there is a large amount of high-powered mathematical economic analysis of principles of fair division, for example, as well as of the likely outcome of different formal arbitration procedures. Unhappily, I know of little empirical research by economist lawyers or others on actual arbitration perhaps because the relevant data are not easily available or not in the public domain.
I take most seriously the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, on confidentiality. I shall reflect on it. More generally, I favour openness as a principle here and elsewhere. However we sit as a Committee, I hope that we can return to that matter. I agree, and I said, "Hear, hear", when it was remarked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that the Bill is a model of clarity. I and other noble Lords approve of that. I am also a trifle worried because from many years' experience I have learnt that whenever something seems to be clear beyond doubt I should pause and wonder whether I have really understood what I have read.
Perhaps I may give an example. Clause 24 refers to the power of the court to remove the arbitrator. Subsection (1)(a) refers to the ground,
"that circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality",
paragraph (b) to the ground,
"that he does not possess the qualifications required by the arbitration agreement",
and paragraph (c) to the ground,
"that he is physically or mentally incapable of conducting the proceedings".
It is curious that the statement that the tribunal shall act fairly and impartially comes later in the Bill. It is odd that the requirement appears later than the conditions under which one makes use of the requirement. As a layman, I am concerned by the fact that, for example, the word "impartially" is not defined in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to independence which, as he says, is not mentioned in the Bill. As a layman, it seems to me that what matters is impartiality, which lies at the heart of the Bill. I would have argued to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that independence is logically a possible means to that end of impartiality but I cannot see it as an end in its own right. However, I have learnt from experience of many other Bills in your Lordships' House that the legal community uses language in its own peculiar way. Therefore, there may be some meaning as to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about independence and our need to clarify what is meant by "impartiality". I say that in preparation for making a more general remark about how we will handle the Committee stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. Until tonight I was unaware that there was any objection to our proceeding by way of a Public Bill Committee. As someone who would expect to sit on that Committee, it had not occurred to me that it would lead to delay. Quite the contrary; I had thought that it would operate expeditiously and quickly. Speaking as a busy person who must also earn his living, I would regard that as an absolute prerequisite of how we carry on.

787
Given the distinction of the noble and learned Lords who have expressed doubts on the matter, however, I have become somewhat concerned. I believe that what the Minister proposes to put forward is right but perhaps we ought to follow what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and not necessarily make up our minds tonight. I do not know but my immediate response is to say that there is no problem. However, the thought of not going along the lines of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in particular, would, to put it mildly, trouble me. Therefore, I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply. I should add that the central issue is the point which everybody has made; namely, that we must get a move on and deal with the matter one way or another.
En passant, something which intrigues me is that I have discovered—several noble Lords have pointed this out—that a great deal of arbitration work is carried out by non-lawyers. Lawyers seem to be in the minority in the arbitration field. In rhe construction industry, which seems to be one of the main sources of work in that sphere, the majority of arbitrators are people like surveyors and architects. They are appointed by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and other such organisations which carry out that kind of work. Therefore, we must not think of this Bill as being a bonanza for lawyers or as being entirely a matter for lawyers. In fact, as the Minister emphasised, we wish to see disputes resolved with a minimum of difficulty—I echo his words—and to see arbitration as a valid alternative to litigation. I would go further and say that we should see it as a preferred alternative to litigation. I take that to be very much at the heart of the Bill.
I dwell on that partly because of the views of the departmental advisory committee on arbitration law which has been referred to with approval by noble Lords. The members of that committee have been referred to as people of great distinction. I am sure they are. I do not wish to make any defamatory remarks about them either as individuals or jointly. But looking at the list of members I have before me, I am staggered to see that the majority are lawyers. There are other members whose provenance I do not know; therefore, they may also be lawyers. This is an area in which we all agree lawyers are not of the essence. And yet the department's advisory committee whose members helped to prepare the Bill contains a small minority of people who are not lawyers. I do not believe that that is right. When the Minister reappoints members to the committee, perhaps he will consider a broader range of people. I could recommend one or two intelligent, sensible economists whom he might wish to appoint to the committee.
I turn now to one or two points of detail. I am intrigued by and very interested in the clause of the Bill which deals with consumer arbitration agreements. Quite separate from that, my advice has been that within the county court there is something called small claims arbitration. Until recently, those claims were limited to £1,000 or less but I believe that that has now been raised to £3,000 or less.
788
I am sure that I am right to say that those county court arbitrations are exempt from the operation of the Bill. That is in Clause 94. I am very keen on small claims work. Therefore, it seems to me that we should remember that much of the small claims work is a model of how we should proceed more generally. When we sit as a Committee, I should like to look at Clause 89 which deals with consumer arbitration. As an economist and someone who believes that the consumer is paramount in everything, I am surprised to see that in the Bill the consumer is defined negatively as someone who is not a business and who is involved with goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption. I wish to have that matter clarified.
I echo all the laudatory remarks made about the people who have helped with the Bill. I shall not repeat all the names. Many are people known to me; they are all first class. However, perhaps I may be my usual acid self and observe that the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, reported in 1989. It seems to me that it has taken a long time between his committee telling us what to do and reaching the present situation. By any standards, seven years is a long time. I certainly wish to see this legislation reach the statute book in 1996. It would be dreadful if there was a drift from seven years to eight years before its enactment.
I believe that we should proceed expeditiously. There are some changes that we may wish to make in Committee but we do not wish to undermine the fundamental structure of the Bill. As I say, we wish to see the Bill speedily reach the statute book. All of those who take part in the proceedings on the Bill will take the matter seriously. But, speaking for the Official Opposition, I shall do nothing that would delay the Bill and prevent it becoming law during this Session of Parliament.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I reflect somewhat ruefully that when I once had responsibility for the activities of some of the draftsmen, I can never recollect an occasion when the drafting of a Bill was approved of in such a magnificent form and which secured the approval of so many distinguished judges. Nevertheless, as the departmental Minister responsible for this Bill in your Lordships' House. I am delighted that there has been such a universal degree of approval for the fashion in which the Bill has been drafted. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. A number of people were rightly complimented on their contributions, but it was good of the noble and learned Lord to mention the way in which parliamentary counsel finally drew the Bill together in such an acceptable form. I have no doubt that those who have contributed to the drafting will be particularly flattered that my noble friend Lord Hacking should go so far as to compare it with the great statutes, with which we are all familiar, of the 19th century.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made a number of comments about some over-drafting. In July, a draft was put out for consultation. We made a number of changes subsequently in response to the points made then.

789
I am delighted that, having engaged in some study of this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who has singled himself out as being the only non-lawyer to contribute to the debate, has become so intrigued by it. It is an extremely important subject and the way that it is set out in the Bill lends itself to an appreciation of just what is at issue.
I shall try to deal with a number of the points raised but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not seek to answer them all. Clearly, a number of the points were raised as pointers or markers as to what noble Lords may wish to discuss during later stages of the Bill.
A very important point was raised early by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He referred to the provisions dealing with statutory arbitrations and the obligations which we undoubtedly have under Article 6 of the European Convention which refers to a right to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
As the noble Lord noted, the Bill requires the tribunal here to be impartial but not, on the face of it, to be both independent and impartial. I shall briefly outline the thinking on that point before considering the case of statutory arbitrations.
The recommendation to include impartiality alone was made by the departmental advisory committee on arbitration law after careful consideration of the issue. It reached the conclusion that lack of independence, unless it gives rise to doubts about the impartiality of the arbitrator, is of no significance. Independence is a difficult concept to define precisely and there are considerable doubts as to its exact meaning. In countries such as the United States and Sweden, parties have used that vagueness to mount endless arguments on the point. Almost any connection, however remote, has been put forward to challenge the independence of the arbitrator.
Furthermore, in the small world of arbitration, it may he difficult to find arbitrators who have no connection with anyone else involved. Indeed, the parties may want an arbitrator who has close links with their industry for the knowledge and expertise that they can bring to bear on the dispute. It is undoubtedly correct to say that it is vital for the tribunal to be utterly impartial. If there is any suggestion that a connection of some kind exists between an arbitrator and a party which raises doubts on that point, then the requirement for impartiality will not be met.
I turn now to the more specific issue of statutory arbitrations. With respect, I would question whether Article 6 applies in all such cases. There are many cases where, although the provision for arbitration is set out in primary or secondary legislation, the state is not involved in settling the dispute. One example is arbitration under the Agricultural Tenancies Act and, indeed, there are many more. I would suggest that Article 6 may not be relevant in that respect. If, however, the dispute is between the Executive and a party, then I more clearly see the argument that Article 6 might apply. However, much will depend on the particular wording of the provision in question, which is what will normally govern the appointment.
790
The Bill is only applied to statutory arbitrations for certain purposes. I conclude then that there should not be a problem with the Bill itself. However, I was most grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy in warning me of his intention to raise the point. Indeed, before we reach the Committee stage, the noble Lord may wish to expand on his thinking to me.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, raised a point which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Byron, on the lack of provision within the Bill on confidentiality. I am aware of the Australian cases to which he made reference. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord, if he did not already know, that that is also a question which the advisory committee wrestled with at some length. The committee's advice ultimately was that the Bill should not attempt to codify the common law on such matters. We were content to accept that advice. Confidentiality—and, indeed, privacy—are highly complex issues. It would be difficult to get it right and all too easy to get it wrong. Rather than meeting our objective of improving arbitration as a method of resolving disputes, we would run the risk of creating new problems and adding to litigation.
While I would accept that it is desirable to give a statutory framework to the general principles which have developed on the matter and which have been upheld by the courts, the dangers of so doing are also significant. We would have to ensure that the provisions were comprehensive. The exceptions to the general requirement for confidentiality are numerous and partly open to question. I shall give your Lordships just two examples: arbitration awards become public in legal proceedings or abroad under the New York Convention; equally, there are important exceptions to privacy. I am convinced that the better way forward would be to leave it to the courts to develop the matter on a case-by-case basis, rather than run the risk of hindering the development of arbitration here by an inadequate statutory provision.
Perhaps I may deal with a number of other points raised during the debate. My noble friend Lord Noel-Buxton expressed his concern about the agreement in writing. I recognise that we have adopted a wide definition here. However, our object was to ensure, in what is essentially, as my noble friend correctly identified, a consensual matter, that there was sufficient to identify what the parties have agreed. We have no interest in importing the formalism which has sometimes arisen with requirements for writing.
My noble friend Lord Hacking raised the matter of the distinction between domestic and international matters. Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that Clause 88 would provide the opportunity for that distinction to be removed, possibly along the lines that he suggested. However, as I am sure he is aware, I must remind my noble friend that there are a number of implications. Before taking such a step, we would intend to consult.
I turn now to a rather different point; namely, publication on the Internet. If the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not aware of the fact, perhaps I may

791
advise him that the issue of electronic publishing of parliamentary material more generally is under active consideration, not only in your Lordships' House but also in another place. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that the broader policy issues are complex. However, they are being considered as a matter of urgency. Until such time as that work is complete, in our view it would not be appropriate to approach the matter in a piecemeal or ad hoc fashion.
As I have indicated, there seem to me to be a number of other points raised during the debate to which I could respond, but which are probably better left to a later stage. I only wish to conclude on the substance of the Second Reading debate by thanking your Lordships for the erudite contributions which have been made. It is a long and complex Bill, but I doubt whether—and certainly not in my time—such a complicated Bill has ever received such a warm welcome at the point of its introduction.
I should like briefly to deal with what should be the next stage—
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord continues, perhaps I may ask him one question. If the Minister is giving consideration during the interim period between now and the Committee stage to including the word "independent", would he bear in mind the position in traditional English arbitration with one arbitrator appointed by each party and the two appointing an umpire? I believe that there may be problems in that respect.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope that I did not give any indication that I was inclined to move in the direction suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. All I sought to address to him was where I took issue with his views on the application of Article 6 necessarily to all statutory arbitrations. I hope that I left it satisfactorily enough for the noble Lord on the basis that, if wishes to develop the argument further with me, it might be conveniently done between now and the next stage.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should, perhaps, make it quite clear that I was not advocating including the notion of independence for ordinary, private commercial arbitrations for the reasons given by the Minister with which I respectfully agree. However, the problem is that there are some kinds of compulsory arbitrations regarding the case law of the European Court of Justice—in milk quota cases, to take an obvious example—where, for one reason or another, the Government do not abide by the award, or something of that nature, and where the European Court has said that independence is different from impartiality, that there must be independence from the Executive and a binding effect given to the award. I am confident that we can deal with those problems. My only concern was that if on the face of the Bill there was a mismatch between European criteria and ours it might lead to trouble later. It was only to be reassured about that that I raised the issue in the first place.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his further explanation of his
792
position. That was indeed what I understood were his concerns. One recognises clearly enough that where the Executive or government are involved there is that requirement in the jurisprudence of that court that there should be an independent tribunal. We may have to consider, either in Clause 1 or at some other point where we have to deal with that limited class of statutory tribunals, whether the word "independence" needs to he imported onto the face of the Bill. It is a complicated question and I do not think I can offer a conclusive answer at the moment.
I was going to deal with the next stage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, expressed his concern when he said that he did not wish there now to be—if I have noted his words correctly—a maelstrom of consultation, given the long period of gestation that this work has already been subjected to. I am obviously open to further observations from your Lordships, but I should like to move my Motion this evening, not least because it is a procedure that has been recommended to your Lordships by the Procedure Committee indicating it should be used for Bills other than Law Commission Bills. It was one that the usual channels had identified as being a suitable candidate for the procedure. I would hope the procedure would provide an opportunity for careful, informed scrutiny in essentially a non-adversarial forum. The contributions this evening seem to me to indicate that that is certainly possible. It does not follow from committing it to this procedure that there necessarily has to be—nor indeed can there be—an unlimited period for the taking of evidence. What I would propose is to move my Motion unless I receive a clear indication from the House that that would not be acceptable. I suggest that in the course of the next week we might consider in an informal way whether what I have proposed is desirable and whether there is a sufficient restriction that can be put on the proceedings of the committee to make it acceptable to one and all.
What I am anxious to avoid is that if I do not move my Motion now that might mean that on the face of it we are committing this Bill to a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. I would certainly wish to avoid that. There may be a third option that is available to us, but if your Lordships will accept my undertaking that we will engage in informal discussions with all those who have an interest in this, having moved the Second Reading that would be the step I propose to take.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, before we proceed I was rather hoping that several noble and learned Lords would get up and at least utter a response to the Minister as to whether what he was saying was acceptable to them because, as I said, I certainly would not wish to

793
act in a way that they felt was wholly unacceptable. I am hoping to encourage at least one of the noble and learned Lords to get up and say something.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I rise merely to ask a question which demonstrates my well-known ignorance. How does one uncommit it once it is committed?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, one simply puts down another Motion to uncommit it. I should emphasise that because an opportunity would be given to that committee to take evidence it is not bound so to do. I think there may be some misunderstanding about the extent to which the mastery of procedure resides within the committee. It is entirely open to it to determine what evidence it receives in what form and whether it receives oral evidence. However, it seems to me that the informal discussions that I have suggested to your Lordships as being appropriate would be the better occasion on which to work out exactly what would be suitable rather than try to engage in that discussion on the Floor of the House at this stage.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I hope it would not be impertinent of me as a relative boy in this
794
world to say something in support of the attitude taken by the Minister. When the Special Public Bill Committee procedure was used for the private international law Bill under the expert chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, there was controversy and evidence was taken, but it was dealt with in an expeditious way. It seems to me that there will be much less controversy with the present Bill, although one can never be sure of anything.
The great advantage of that procedure is that there would be a specialist committee, not composed only of lawyers and judges but nevertheless specialists. Provided it was skilfully chaired, as I am sure it would be, and provided that the proper safeguards were built into the procedure, I see no reason why it could not be—in the words of somebody else—dealt with on oiled castors, speedily, with more expert consideration than might be possible on the Floor of the House. My view is that that seems a sensible way forward.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter-past nine o'clock.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Financing
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Financing