Sitting of 15 October 1996

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

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
    Order for consideration read.
    Ordered,
    That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Local Authority Housing
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords. [38350]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): To date, 52 local authorities have transferred their stock, raising over £3.7 billion of private sector money which has been invested, improving the level of repairs and maintenance in transferred housing. I am therefore encouraging all authorities to follow their example.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for those encouraging words. He probably knows that West Dorset, which covers part of my constituency, has benefited from homes being released, thereby becoming a better landlord and keeping rents down and productivity up. Money is also released back into West Dorset to spend on job creation projects. Other councils in my area, however, say that they have to join a list and wait their turn if they want to get into transferring.
    Will my right hon. Friend offer more encouragement to ensure that this happens early and to ensure that the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors who continually try to block progress are prevented from doing so?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly be happy to look at any suggestions from the local authorities concerned. I do
    572
    want to encourage them. They should not use excuses, because the fact is that the money can be used for the benefit of tenants. We can lever in private sector money that would not otherwise be available, and maintenance is thereby much improved.
    Mr. Betts: Is not the Secretary of State addressing the wrong issue? It is not housing transfer that concerns tenants most. Most of them want to stay with their local authorities anyway. What worries tenants is the need to build new homes and to improve existing ones. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be ashamed of the fact that the Government have allowed public investment in housing to drop by half since the last general election, at a time when local authorities possess £5 billion in capital receipts which could be used to improve homes and build new ones? Should not the Secretary of State be dealing with that instead of with fanciful notions about the transfer of housing stock?
    Mr. Gummer: It is odd, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that, that Sheffield should be one of the first local authorities concerned with the estates renewal challenge fund—which is precisely what we are talking about. Transfer releases capital from the private sector, which enables that capital to be spent. So the tenants who want better maintenance and improved homes get them. Experience in Suffolk Coastal, my area, shows that whereas there used to be many complaints, even about a well run local housing authority, there are now very few complaints because of the improvements that have been achieved. The hon. Gentleman should follow what Manchester has done, and what has been done elsewhere by local authorities that are a little more progressive than he is.

    Rough Sleepers Initiative
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has further to extend the rough sleepers initiative. [38351]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I am studying the results of the survey into the extent of rough sleeping outside central London undertaken on behalf of the Government by Shelter and I expect to announce my conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Thomason: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the number of people who have been sleeping rough in the centre of London since 1990 and the introduction of the initiative has fallen to about a quarter of the previous figure, according to the independent survey? Does he agree that it is therefore important that the initiative should be extended outside central London as soon as possible?
    Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter is well known. The initiative has been successful in central London and we are investigating the needs of other places which might require such an initiative. In some places, facilities may exist but, for example, the outreach services are not effectively directing people who need those facilities to

    573
    them. My announcement on the future of the rough sleepers initiative will cover a range of responses to help people in the direst need.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not a telling commentary on the Government that so many people are sleeping rough? Prior to 1979 and in the late 1960s, I do not remember leaving the House and seeing anyone sleeping rough in Charing Cross or in the Strand. On my way home now, many people are in that desperate situation, and that shows only too well the failure of the Government's housing policy.
    Mr. Curry: The fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) said, that, according to independent counts—not done by the Government—the numbers have come down significantly. The hon. Gentleman would be foolish indeed if he assumed that all rough sleeping is directly attributable to one cause or another. We are all aware of the fragmentation of society, and the Leader of the Opposition recently devoted a speech to that subject. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government should be held responsible, automatically and immediately, for every development in society, he has a bizarre view of government. We are tackling the problems with remarkable success and with the co-operation of the voluntary sector. The hon. Gentleman would do better to pay tribute to those who work hard to help those in the greatest need.
    Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to accuse anybody of NIMBYism, and I acknowledge the achievements of the rough sleepers initiative, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that friction is increasing at the interface between the solutions to the problems faced by rough sleepers and, in some cases, their behaviour and the residential communities on which those solutions are beginning to impinge? Has he given thought to how that friction might be better lubricated?
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend is correct. It is often difficult to obtain planning permission, for example, for some of the specialist facilities, such as de-tox units, because residents are naturally fearful of the possible effect on the neighbourhood. If we can draw rough sleepers into some framework of care and discipline, that is better for the neighbourhood than if they remain on the street, but it is clear that people who live close to facilities should be invited to visit the facilities and the framework that exists and to give their consent. The changes must be made with the residents, not against them.
    Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister is keen to quote figures, may I ask whether he agrees with the conclusions of the recent report of the inquiry into preventing youth homelessness, which was chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, that some 300,000 youngsters experienced homelessness last year? Does he agree that the spectacle of young people begging and sleeping on the streets of our cities is the most terrible indictment of the failure of the Government's housing policy?
    Why, therefore—when he and his Department are trying, through the rough sleepers initiative, to reduce the numbers sleeping rough—do his colleagues in other Departments undermine his efforts? Why is the Secretary
    574
    of State for Social Security introducing benefit cuts that will leave many more under-25-year-olds sleeping rough because they do not have the means to pay for housing?
    Mr. Curry: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I do not accept the figures of the inquiry chaired by Andreas Whittam Smith, because they are based on a sample survey of single and homeless people taken in 1991, which has been extrapolated to 1995. There is a problem of young homelessness and, indeed, of all sorts and I would like to be able to tackle all those problems, but such figures, which are extrapolated, based on unreliable sources and designed for propaganda purposes, are not helpful. People would be better served if voluntary effort were devoted to helping those in need, rather than to concocting propaganda figures.

    Construction Industry
    Sir Anthony Durant: T: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in relation to the construction industry. [38352]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): My Department's role within the Government and the EU is to help sell British construction products and services in the domestic, European and world markets.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recovery in the construction industry is still slow? Will he encourage the private finance initiative, in co-operation with the Department of Health and the Department of Transport, and try to get it moving a little faster?
    Mr. Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the private finance initiative. My right hon. Friend and I have met those in the construction industry several times to discuss issues related to the PFI and, as a result, have encouraged bilaterals with the Departments to which my hon. Friend referred, but not just those Departments, because we must ensure that any, obstacles are overcome, whichever Departments are involved.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Does the Minister accept that half a million jobs in the construction industry have been lost over the past six years? How does he justify the Government's policy doing such damage to the industry, when £5 billion of local authority capital receipts are tied up and unusable and there is massive need in the country? Does the Minister accept any responsibility for that?
    Mr. Jones: I remember the borrowing binge that the last Labour Government went through, and the massive inflation that did immense damage to the construction industry. We would no doubt have that again if we ever had the misfortune to have another Labour Government.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my hon. Friend have a word with his colleagues in the Treasury and draw their attention to the part of the construction industry that is carried out on the black economy, to the detriment of fair competition, adequate training skills and general competence, not to mention the Chancellor's cash flow?

    575
    Would it not be of great benefit if that illegal activity were reduced, the revenue restored and the prospect of tax cuts for honest taxpayers brought much closer?
    Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, legitimate contractors have considerable interest in trying to tackle the black economy. We have been engaged in discussions through both the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, and are contemplating what steps to take at this very moment.

    Business Rates
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much tax was paid last year by businesses in excess of the amount which they would have paid had not transitional arrangements been in force for those businesses the values of whose premises were reduced at the time of the most recent valuation. [38353]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): Following the 1995 revaluation, 265,000 businesses saw a reduction in their rates bills in 1995–96. Of that reduction, £1.1 billion was deferred to help cushion the impact of the revaluation on 1.1 million ratepayers who would otherwise have faced substantial increases in their rates bills.
    Mr. Rendel: Given the lack of logic behind singling out those whose business values have fallen to pay welcome subsidies to those whose business values have increased, may we assume that the Minister will now persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the transitional arrangement for those whose values have fallen before the next general election—presumably in the forthcoming Budget—as happened before the last general election?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would refer to the previous rate review, in which the reductions reflected on the businesses in London actually benefited them. In other words, it is swings and roundabouts. Businesses in London and the south-east benefited from the transitional arrangements then, while the reverse is now the case.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Chancellor in next month's Budget to look at the impact of uniform business rates on small shopkeepers?
    Sir Paul Beresford: Certainly, and as a part-time small business man, that matter concerns me as well. It is also of considerable concern to the Department.

    Area Cost Adjustment
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the independent review into the area cost adjustment. [38354]
    Mr. Gummer: In our consultation, all four local government organisations have expressed reservations
    576
    about implementing this review and have asked for further work. I will consider the representations after my meeting with them tomorrow.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent review endorsed the view expressed by Buckinghamshire county council and other local authorities in the south-east that the area cost adjustment needs to be enhanced rather than reduced? Will he look seriously at implementing the report by the independent review team, especially in the context of the difficulties that we face in Buckinghamshire as a consequence of Milton Keynes becoming a separate unitary authority?
    Mr. Gummer: It is unusual for all the local authority associations to express similar reservations, with differing degrees of intensity, about the difficulty of implementing a report. Therefore, I think that it is proper to listen to them carefully. I understand my hon. Friend's view, and the report makes some very important points. However, I do not think that we should rush ahead without hearing what the local authorities have to say.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Secretary of State aware that, under the review's proposals, Cambridgeshire county council would gain by about £10 million this financial year? Does he believe that the Government were justified in imposing a capping limit on Cambridgeshire in its standard spending assessment in the face of that sort of evidence?
    Mr. Gummer: All those who would benefit from the proposed changes are very much in favour of them, and all those who would lose from them are very much against them—the fervour increases with the degree of gain or loss. We maintain a fair and reasonable system. Cambridge was warned that, if it sought to gain money from the community outside that system, it would be capped—and capped it was.
    Mr. Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in Derbyshire and elsewhere about the way in which the current area cost adjustment works? Is he aware also that there is great dismay that the basis of the proposed reforms appears to be fundamentally flawed because the whole range of incomes has not been taken into account, particularly public sector salaries? Will he give an undertaking to take those concerns fully into account before he makes a final judgment about the proposals?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend points to only one of the issues raised by the local authority associations. They are concerned about some of the methodology used. I am determined that any changes we might make would commend themselves to the House as a whole and would remain in place for a reasonable and stable period. In order to do that, I must take into account precisely the points that my hon. Friend has made.

    Wildlife Habitats
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve the provision of habitats for threatened wildlife species. [38355]
    Mr. Gummer: Our biodiversity plan is accepted as a world leader. It is based on a programme of targets to conserve endangered species in their habitats.
    Ms Quin: While there has been a positive reaction to the publication of biodiversity action plans to save threatened species, such as the red squirrel, is the Secretary of State aware that there is concern that it may not be possible to find the necessary resources, from both public and private sources, to fund those action plans? Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the plans will not fail due to the lack of a relatively modest level of resources?
    Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Lady will agree that this biodiversity action plan involves a very direct agreement between Government and the non-governmental organisations which helped to frame it. I have every intention of ensuring that it succeeds. I am committed to protecting those species, and I shall see that that protection is carried through.
    Mr. Meacher: In view of the known damage that is caused to wildlife habitats by the excessive and reckless use of certain toxic pesticides leaching into water supplies and contaminating land, will the Secretary of State take steps to restrict or ban the use of the more serious pesticides? In light of the Government's admission that Gulf war syndrome was caused by organophosphate spraying, and in light of official reports in 1951 and 1987 that condemned the use of those highly toxic chemicals in farming—particularly for sheep dipping—will the Secretary of State now ban the use of organophosphates?
    Mr. Gummer: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench as Opposition spokesman on this subject, but I remind him that his question is entirely one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the meantime, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make such general statements about various substances, some of which have done a great deal to enable us to feed people in this country and elsewhere.

    Social Housing
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase the provision of social housing. [38356]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: The falling numbers of homeless, of rough sleepers and of households in temporary accommodation, show that we are already meeting need. We are also encouraging effective local authority policies to encourage the most effective use of existing housing stock.
    Mr. Heppell: Is the Minister aware that there are 11,500 people on Nottingham city council's waiting list? With the social housing programme at its lowest level since the war, does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is time to allow the council to release its capital receipts of over £40 million to try to boost the housing programme and to put some of the people on the waiting list—many of them elderly or disabled—into decent, affordable housing?
    Mr. Jones: Councillors are not sitting with their capital receipts money under the mattress. If we followed the hon. Gentleman's advice, there would be upward pressure
    578
    on interest rates, extra borrowing and an increase in council tax. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to come clean about that?
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that social housing and all other forms of development are best established against a clear local plan? Does he therefore understand the concern that we have in Leeds that, having been through the longest planning inquiry in history and having been promised a report in 1997, we have now been told that it has been deferred to 1999? Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into the reasons for the delay and try to bring forward some certainty in our local planning, both for social housing and for everything else in our city?
    Mr. Jones: I fully understand the importance of my hon. Friend's point. If we are to have a plan-led system, we must have up-to-date plans. I am discussing with officials and a wide range of people outside the Department how we might speed up the system in regard to unitary development plans. That being so, my hon. Friend makes his point at a timely moment.

    Elected Mayors
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages of having elected mayors. [38357]
    Mr. Curry: My Department received 600 responses to its consultation on the idea of locally-elected mayors. There were four favourable responses. Not a single London borough; not a single metropolitan council; not a single district council or for that matter a single county council was in favour.
    Dr. Wright: Having spent 17 years trying to emasculate local government, could not the Government now take the opportunity to try to rejuvenate it? Why do they set their face against an idea that has the support of more than 70 per cent. of the population, or at least agree to some experiments? The Deputy Prime Minister was once enthusiastic about this idea, but that by itself is surely no reason for the Government to be against it.
    Mr. Curry: I have just said that local government is against it. The Government have told local authorities that, if it is an area that they wish to explore, there is no reason why we should be hostile to it. When we consulted local government, it was clear that it was not interested. It was much more interested in the structure of committees. It was more interested, perhaps, in some form of cabinet system for local government. It was also more interested in the idea of a council manager. It was especially interested in councillors' allowances. It was not particularly interested in locally elected mayors.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Could the candidates for mayoralty include those who are in favour of one type of school for their own children and another type for everyone else's?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that the bolt will have gone home, as it always does when it is fired by my hon. Friend.

    Unfit Homes
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in England are unfit for human habitation. [38358]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Against the statutory definition the last English house condition survey in 1991 recorded 1.5 million such dwellings. More up-to-date information will be available from the 1996 English house condition survey, which is due to report next year.
    Mr. Bennett: Given the increasing need for new accommodation, does the Minister accept that it is extremely important for the Government to make the best use of existing stock? Is he satisfied that there are now sufficient resources to bring unfit dwellings up to date to modern standards?
    Mr. Jones: There are many other sources of resources that are not being properly tapped by local authorities. As has been said, we want to encourage local authorities to go for large-scale voluntary transfers, which would release resources for this and other purposes.

    Local Authority Dwellings
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of local authority dwellings at the latest date; and how many were built in the last year. [38359]
    Mr. Curry: There were 4.4 million dwellings in the social rented sector at the beginning of April 1995, of which 3.6 million were local authority dwellings. More than 76,000 new social lettings were provided in 1995–6, including 800 in new dwellings built by local authorities. Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the most savage indictment of this Government over 17 years is that, in 1978–79, when the Labour Government lost office, local authorities built 78 times more houses than the Government are building at this time? Only a paltry 605 were built for the whole of England and Wales during the course of last year. Old-age pensioners are being shunted from hospitals to community care who should be in warden-controlled accommodation.
    When the Prime Minister talks about coming from two-roomed accommodation in Brixton to 10 Downing street, what about all the others, those who have only two rooms in which to live; and what about all those who do not have a roof over their head? It is time that the Government released capital receipts to allow Labour local authorities to build dwellings for the people who badly need them.
    Mr. Curry: It is the dwellings that were built by so many Labour local authorities that we are now having to put right by programmes such as estate renewal. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he has learnt absolutely nothing. He knows nothing about housing associations. He knows nothing about private sector investment of £10 billion in the social housing sector. He
    580
    knows nothing about new opportunities for landlords. He knows nothing about new opportunities through housing companies. He wants none of that. He has learnt nothing and he has forgotten nothing. He is the last Bourbon of Bolsover and has views of no future but a failed past.
    Mrs. Peacock: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how much of the presently retained capital receipts would be available for building if all local authorities paid off their debts?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. While local authorities maintain debt, they have to pay interest on it and would have to levy council taxes to do so, or they can use the income from their capital receipts to meet those charges. It is entirely mythical that capital receipts are some bonus that has already been paid before. We are talking about public expenditure, and if it were to be spent, other spending would have to replace it or there would have to be borrowing. If the hon. Member for Bolsover really wants to help authorities that are in the worst situation, it would be much more simple to give credit approvals. That is public expenditure as well. There is no way around it.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that just 605 houses were started by local authorities in England last year? As an example, in the north-west there are 14,000 homeless families, but not one house was started by local authorities in the north-west—not one house in Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale or Manchester. Does he not think that that is a disgrace? Does he not realise that many local authorities have capital receipts? That money should be invested in finding somewhere decent for homeless people.
    Mr. Curry: The Labour party is obsessed with capital receipts and is trying to do it with mirrors—[Interruption.] The Labour party has said that it is not prepared to redefine the public sector borrowing requirement. The shadow Treasury team has said that. It may be that, occasionally, Governments get caught by their Treasury when they arrive in office, but it is remarkable to be shackled by the Treasury before being anywhere near office.
    This is public expenditure, however it is defined, and it is not a disgrace that local authorities are not building many houses, because we do not intend them to. We think that housing associations do the job better, and if we had not moved the emphasis to housing associations, the social housing market would not have received £10 billion in private sector investment since 1988. That is an outstanding record. It is one that I hope other people will emulate. There is no case for continuing local authority build when one can pull private sector money alongside public sector money, as local authorities do by helping housing associations.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise standard spending assessment formulae to take greater account of the needs of rural areas. [38360]
    Sir Paul Beresford: As my hon. Friend is aware, we have commissioned some detailed research on sparsity which shows that there is no need at present for any radical changes to standard spending assessment formulae.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he agree that it frequently costs more to provide services in rural areas, and that many people living in the countryside do not enjoy the services enjoyed by those who live in towns and cities, such as recreation and leisure facilities and concessionary travel arrangements? When my hon. Friend considers the studies to which he referred, will he please bear in mind those costs on shire district councils and ensure that, if anything, their SSAs go up, not down?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be interested to know of two other pieces of research. The sparsely populated authorities researched this subject, and their final report concluded that the allowances for sparsity should be at least as great as they are at present. Interestingly, the research for the Association of Metropolitan Authorities argued for lower percentages, and concluded that there was an argument for no sparsity allowances at all.
    Mr. William O'Brien: When considering the revision of SSAs in rural areas, will the Minister have regard to the representations made during the past five or six years by authorities in the Webber Craig group for fairness in the allocation of SSAs for education, social services and community care?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman makes such a large, kindly and clear plea that I shall certainly take notice of it.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend has made it clear that some people do not believe that there is any need for a sparsity factor at all. May I say firmly and clearly that in West Dorset we need that sparsity factor and we would take a poor view if it were withdrawn?
    Sir Paul Beresford: As I think I said in my original answer, research shows that there is a need for the sparsity factor, but that no great change is required.

    Rented Housing
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the current availability of houses for rent. [38361]
    Mr. Curry: There are around 4.5 million homes in the social rented sector and more than 2 million privately rented dwellings in England.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister admit that, since the Conservative party came to power, the number of rented homes in Britain has dropped by more than a million? In his view, does "opportunity for all" include the right of less well-off people to rent decent homes that they can afford, or is it simply the right for people to be homeless during the last cold winter of Tory rule?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. and learned Gentleman follows these matters, he will know that I place great emphasis on the provision of rented accommodation and, in particular, the revival of the private rented sector. That has happened. There are now 2 million homes in that sector. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to read The Observer, which I suspect is a newspaper read more by Opposition Members than by Conservative Members, he would see that Halifax Mortgage Services, Woolwich Direct, Mortgage Express and Homeloans Direct are now providing mortgages for people to build homes to rent in the private sector. The reason given is that
    "the investment climate is now more favourable than in decades. Rent controls have been abolished. Investors are free to charge market prices and can guarantee possession of their properties through assured shorthold tenancies. There is also scope for long-term capital growth."
    This Government are doing more to help the private rented sector to get a better balance in housing than any previous Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who voted against the right to buy and does not like private rented accommodation, is stuck in the old mindset that the only house worth having is a council-built property. That is not true.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many thousands of local authority houses are now standing empty, and have stood empty for years in Labour-controlled local authorities, and that we should not forget that, if there are housing black spots in Britain, the Labour party is responsible for creating them?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is correct. Basic good management is an essential element in housing: collecting the rents; when tenants leave, getting new tenants in rapidly; and ensuring that repairs are carried out on time. That is an important element. There are also many empty properties in the private sector. It is important that those 600,000 or so properties are brought into use. There is no excuse for such an asset lying idle, whoever owns it.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not recognise that the thousands of people throughout Britain who are on waiting lists to rent houses do not believe a single word he says? They cannot understand why council house waiting lists are longer than in 1979 and why many councils have had to go back to a points system which they abolished many years ago.
    Mr. Curry: What is understood is that, where houses have been transferred to a housing association, the satisfaction level expressed by the tenant is always high. We need a better balance in housing, which the Housing Act 1996 will achieve. We also need to mobilise private sector resources to go alongside the public sector to deliver social housing. With £10 billion in that respect in the past few years, we are achieving it.

    Playing Fields and Derelict Land
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the use of (a) playing fields and (b) derelict land for housing and other construction; and if he will make a statement. [38362]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: We want to make the best use of derelict sites for housing and other development. We also want to protect playing fields because of their vital contribution to health and to the quality of life. Our planning policies are designed to do both those things. Since August, any proposal to develop on a playing field must be referred to the Sports Council for England, as statutory consultee, to ensure that local planning authorities are aware of any deficiency in playing field provision before making any decisions.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent action in saving the GWR playing fields in west Ealing in my constituency from development for housing by British Rail, and contrast that with the Ealing Labour council's strenuous attempts to build houses on Dormers Wells high school playing fields, until the council was stopped from doing so by the Government. May I support his admirable policies of building on derelict land, which is obviously more suitable than playing fields?
    Mr. Jones: In his usual telling way, my hon. Friend makes the point that it is only the Conservative party that cares about the environment.
    Mr. Tony Banks: How much derelict land is owned by the Government?
    Mr. Jones: Too much derelict land is owned by all owners of property in Britain, and it is incumbent not just on the Government but on local authorities, public institutions and private owners to try to get that land developed.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that local councils such as my own in Wyre should be encouraged to develop land in urban areas, particularly derelict land, and not develop open fields on the edges of towns? Will he ensure that in future local plans reflect that need?
    Mr. Jones: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Given the great demographic challenges to which we must face up, the key way of trying to ensure that houses are provided is to ensure that they are on already used land. It is depressing that, when we are trying to encourage a return to central towns and cities, the Labour party spokesman on these issues, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is busy all the time promising developers that there will be a turning back from the encouragement to go into the centres.

    Forestry
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the environmental benefits of forestry. [38364]
    Mr. Gummer: Representations have been very large—both in number and in variety.
    Mrs. Jackson: Is the Secretary of State not aware of the huge concerns in community forests, especially those in urban regions such as South Yorkshire, about the huge threat that the landfill tax poses to forests because of the increase in illegal dumping? Is he aware that that, added
    584
    to the fact that only 7 per cent. of forest sold since 1991 has had public access agreements—which is disgraceful—means that the public will be denied the proper enjoyment of public access woodland?
    Mr. Gummer: The landfill tax has been welcomed by almost every environmental organisation in Britain and has set an example for the rest of Europe and the world. The hon. Lady shows again that the Labour party does not care two hoots about the environment, and will use every method to attack the Government's progressive environmental policies.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at 7 per cent., forest cover in England is the lowest in Europe, and that forest plantings have halved since the late 1980s? I suggest that that is not consistent with the rural White Paper, where the Government's intention was to double the rate of forestry cover within the next 50 years. Are there further measures which my right hon. Friend can take to encourage the planting rate, which will have an economic and environmental impact?
    Mr. Gummer: This is the first Government to make a commitment to double the area of forest cover. I am determined to achieve that, but we need to do so in a way that does not cause a financial ramp, which was a feature of the previous system. We must find a sensible way to increase forest cover.
    Ms Ruddock: Has the Secretary of State no shame? Is it not an indictment of his so-called green credentials that, in the past five years, only 7 per cent. of the forestry land that has been sold off has had public access guaranteed? Is it not a fact that, in raising millions of pounds, he has colluded with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to promise relief on inheritance tax for the few while denying the many their natural inheritance of access to our beautiful countryside?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady is wrong as usual, but it is nice to hear her talk about the environment, as no one on the Opposition Benches does so at any time. The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), has made only one speech on the environment in two and a half years, so little does he care about it.
    The hon. Lady is wrong, because woods that are used by the public are not sold off. Arrangements are always made for continued public access to areas where such access has been important; so she should not only talk about the environment more frequently but get her facts right.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38380]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Campbell: As a fellow working class warrior—I will take my coat off—will the Prime Minister confirm that he sent his children to a private school?
    The Prime Minister: I believe in choice. I do not seek to deny choice to other people.
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38381]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Congdon: Which party controls the council with the worst GCSE results in England? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will take tough measures to tackle failing schools, rather than spouting about the family from thousands of miles away?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure which authority it is, but I know that the authorities with the poorest records are all run by the Labour party. That is undoubtedly true. As my hon. Friend intimated, we have now taken powers to deal with failing schools, and, when necessary, we shall use those powers.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the spate of reports of crisis in the national health service, culminating in a hospital refusing even emergency referrals of elderly patients because of a shortage of beds, are a disgrace? Will he accept the judgment of the head of the British Medical Association that that crisis is directly due to the Conservative Government's internal market reforms, which have undermined the health service?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that for a second—nor do a large number of people in the health service up and down the country. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to travel up and down the country within the health service, where he will see in hospitals and in primary health care services the advantages that the reforms have brought about and will continue to bring about in the future. In particular, he may care to look at some of the group general practices that I have visited recently.
    Mr. Blair: What I am putting to the Prime Minister is precisely the view of the doctors and nurses who work in the national health service. Perhaps he will confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, there have been 20,000 more senior managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. Since he became Prime Minister, in London alone there have been 2,500 fewer acute beds, and half the casualty departments in London have closed. When even doctors and nurses with a lifetime's experience in the health service say that that is due to the Government's internal market reforms, can the Prime Minister not see the fundamental damage that those reforms are doing to the very principles of the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. If he wishes to test whether the reforms are working, I offer him the one that was suggested by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) when he
    586
    was shadow Health Secretary: he said that the acid test was whether more patients were being treated. More patients are being treated; patient waiting lists have fallen; 1.5 million more patients are being treated than before the reforms; health expenditure has risen and been provided for by the Government; there are more doctors and more dentists; and waiting times have decreased dramatically. That is a health service providing a wider and better service. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman cherry-picks in order to criticise the health service when he should be supporting it.
    Mr. Blair: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute a single word I said. Furthermore, I do not know how he dare mention dentistry in the national health service after what his Government have done to it. He asked me to talk to those who work in the NHS. Does he recall what the chair of the consultants committee of the BMA said, just in the past few days? He said:
    "I fear the hospital service will he close to collapse this winter."
    Do not people know from their experience that waiting lists are getting longer, people are still lying for hours on end on trolleys in casualty departments, acute beds are scarcer and staff and nurse morale is lower? The right hon. Gentleman simply washes his hands of it. If that is the experience—[HON. MEMBERS: No."] This is the experience of people in the Tory national health service. If that is their experience, is it any wonder that people today know that the Tories cannot ever be trusted on the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that most of what he has just said about the health service is completely misleading and, in many parts, totally inaccurate. Waiting lists are falling. Since 1979, the health service has had the largest sustained building programme of any stage in its history. There are more doctors—that is a matter of fact. There are more dentists—that is a matter of fact. There are more nurses and midwives—that is a matter of fact. I regret very much that he chooses to run down a service that the people who use it know from experience is a better service, which is improving day after day. Treatments that were never before available are provided more speedily and are improving. That is a record in the health service of which we can be proud. Unlike his party, we have not cut building and nurses' pay.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38382]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tremendous news announced today by Vauxhall at its plant in Ellesmere Port in north-west England of £300 million-worth of new investment and 200 jobs? Does he agree that that not only is good news but will create a raft of new opportunities for the region—opportunities that would not be there if a minimum wage and the social chapter were thrust on us?
    The Prime Minister: Today's announcement is certainly more good news on top of a range of inward investment in different parts of the country that has brought a great deal of hope and employment to many parts of the United Kingdom. If we continue to pursue the same policies in future, I believe that we shall continue to attract very large-scale inward investment, partly using the United Kingdom as the base for operations in Europe and beyond, which I very much welcome. That will be lost if we follow the wrong policies. If Labour Members are so certain that the minimum wage will cause no harm, perhaps they will tell us what the minimum wage level will be, so that a judgment may be made.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I ask the Prime Minister a simple question of general principle? Is it right for a Government to seek to interfere in or manipulate the outcome of a Select Committee of Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: As you, Madam Speaker, said yesterday, allegations ought not to be bandied across the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has a complaint, he should put it to the appropriate Committee, and he will see that there is no one in this House more concerned than I am that it should be properly examined.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister care to confirm to the House a statement that he made in a letter to me on 1 October? The letter stated:
    "The Coronation Oath is indeed regarded as a solemn undertaking by the Sovereign which is binding throughout Her reign. Ministers would not advise Her Majesty to sign into law any provision which contradicted Her Oath."
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that that is my view of the Coronation oath.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38384]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAllion: On the day the FTSE index of the top 100 UK companies soared to record new levels, will the Prime Minister spare a thought for the 12,000 Scottish teenagers and under-25s every year who register as homeless? Will he remember that they are but the tip of an iceberg that spreads throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he resolve at least to stop preaching at them about decency, duty and responsibility, and instead begin to show a scrap of decency—a modicum of the duty and responsibility that his Government owe to them—by guaranteeing each and every one of them their human right to a decent and safe home to live in?
    The Prime Minister: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that an extra level of taxation in Scotland would help those people—I very much doubt
    588
    it. Throughout the past 17 years, we have followed policies that will widen opportunity for people, whatever strata of society they may be in and whatever their personal circumstances may be. That is the policy that we have followed. It is the policy in which I believe, and it is the policy that we shall continue to follow.
    Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent examples of the way in which female victims are sometimes treated in court, particularly where sexual offences are alleged? Did he read of the cases in which one young lady was cross-examined for six hours by her rapist and another was cross-examined for 12 days by lawyers acting for six defendants? Should it not be a matter of urgency that court proceedings are reformed to spare female victims that cruelty?
    The Prime Minister: I think that there will be a great deal of sympathy for what my hon. Friend said. Certainly, the case in which the lady was cross-examined by the accused rapist struck deeply with many people throughout the country. I agree that it is something that we should examine.
    Mr. Brian David Jenkins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38385]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister agree that the price review announced today by the Director General of Water Services shows that the Labour party was right all along and that consumers have been ripped off for years under weak regulation, weak government and weak leadership?
    The Prime Minister: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. It shows the Labour party to have been wrong all along. If the industries had remained in public ownership, we would not have had any regulator looking at price reductions, we would not have had a better service, and we would not have had the extra investment. We would still have had the massive amount of taxpayer subsidy to inefficient industries.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend disregard the London-based bleat of the Leader of the Opposition and come to my constituency, where he will find the best health service in Europe at all levels, as my postbag proves, week after week?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that my hon. Friend speaks not only for himself and for his constituents but for the many millions of people who use the NHS each year and who know from their own experiences how well they have been treated in it.
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38386]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if we are to have a high-speed rail link on the west coast main line—with all its environmental advantages, including a reduction in road congestion, and with all the advantages for the western part of the British Isles—there
    590
    will be a need for public money to upgrade that line? If so, have the Government given any consideration to this matter?
    The Prime Minister: We have put a great deal of public money into a number of rail lines—[Interruption.] I suggest that, if Opposition Members do not understand that, they go to look at the new services. I suggest that they also examine the extra investment after the privatisation of British Rail-a privatisation that they said could not be done, should not be done and would not be done. The fact is that it has been done, and that it is a great success. Investment is up, and the service is improving.

Primary Care
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposals for the development of primary health care services.
The Government have always accorded a high priority to the development of NHS primary care. The last 17 years have seen substantial extra resources flow into the primary care sector, and those resources have al lowed general practitioners to extend the range of care provided within their surgeries. More GPs are working within the NHS, employing more nurses and therapists, and there has been an unprecedented investment programme in GP surgery buildings. There has been a continued steady growth of NHS dentistry, and a greater recognition of the role of pharmacists in the delivery of health care.
The development of GP fundholding has also changed the relationship between primary and secondary care, and has allowed GPs—both fundholders and non-fundholders—to use their knowledge of their patients' needs to improve the efficiency and responsiveness of NHS care. From next April, 58 per cent. of the population will be covered by a fundholding GP.
Despite this record of achievement, however, there remain areas of weakness that need to be addressed. Some inner-city areas have not fully benefited from the development of NHS primary care, and many have argued that the statutory framework for the delivery of primary care is now holding back some desirable service developments.
Against that background, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for Health to enter into consultations with patient groups and the primary care professions, and with others interested in the future of primary care, to develop proposals that will allow the continued development of NHS primary care.
The conclusions of my hon. Friend's consultations were set out in the Government's document "Primary Care—The Future", which was published this June. Similar discussions were held in Scotland and Wales, and similar conclusions were reached. The Government are committed to address the full range of issues set out in that document, and we will make a full response to them around the turn of the year.
One of the key conclusions of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health's consultations, however, concerned the need to encourage local flexibility in the delivery of primary care services. This conclusion matches the conclusion of the Government's 1994 Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry".
Therefore, the Government are today publishing a White Paper entitled "Choice and Opportunity" that sets out our proposals for changing NHS legislation to allow greater flexibility in the delivery of NHS primary health care. We intend to introduce a Bill covering these changes at the earliest opportunity.
The proposals do not envisage a new blueprint for NHS primary care. Our approach will be to enable NHS practitioners and local health authorities to develop new ways in which to deliver and improve primary care. Participation will be voluntary, and practitioners who wish to do so will be able to continue to practise under existing arrangements.
592
In the case of general medical and dental practitioners, the legislation envisaged in the White Paper will allow practitioners and health authorities to propose pilots to test the practical implications of different types of contract. For GPs, these might include practice-based contracts, recognising the important part which nurses and therapists play within the primary health care team. Alternatively, they may involve GPs working as salaried employees, freeing them from the task of running a practice to concentrate on clinical work.
For GP practices that do not wish to pilot new forms of contract, but seek ways of developing services within the existing contractual framework, our proposals will provide health authorities and boards with greater freedom to reward GPs who offer an enhanced service to their patients.
Dentists will also have the opportunity to pilot new approaches to the delivery of care. These might include local contracts to provide greater incentives for offering treatment in areas of greatest need; new ways of ensuring accessibility to services; or contracts for groups of practices.
If pilots are successful, it will be possible to implement more widely the approaches that have been tested in this way. But we must be sure that, in testing new approaches, we do not lose the best of the existing arrangements. Pilots will be monitored and the results will be evaluated.
One principle will be inviolate. Services provided by practitioners in any pilot approved under this legislation will be provided on NHS terms. Family doctor services will remain free at the point of use. Dental services will be subject to the same charging regime as other general dental practitioner services. Patients will retain the same registration rights as at present.
My hon. Friend the Minister's consultations highlighted the potential for community pharmacists to play a greater part in encouraging the better use of medicines, giving advice to the public and health promotion. The White Paper sets out proposals to remove the legal restrictions that prevent health authorities and boards from rewarding community pharmacists who provide a higher standard of service to their patients.
The legislation will also introduce greater flexibility for health authorities and boards in purchasing community pharmacy and optometry services, and resolve an anomaly which prevents NHS community pharmacies from providing certain services for patients who live just over the border in a neighbouring health authority or board area. The proposals will not affect dispensing services and patients will still have the right to take NHS prescriptions to the community pharmacy of their choice.
Finally, the legislation will address a long-standing problem with the appointment of GPs to practices by implementing the recommendation in the chief medical officer's report "Maintaining Medical Excellence" that appointments to single-handed practices should be made only where at least one candidate meets the standards set out in the job description.
Our primary care system is the envy of the world. These proposals support and build on that success story. There is no single template; our aim is to provide choice and opportunity for those GPs and dentists who want to develop and improve services to pilot their ideas. All our proposals rely on the commitment and enthusiasm of

593
health care professionals who have played a leading part in their development. We look forward to continuing to work closely with them as we take forward this agenda.
Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome some of the specific proposals in the White Paper. Everyone will welcome the removal of the requirement to make an appointment to a single-handed practice, no matter how bad the applicant, and will be astonished that it has taken so long to put that absurdity right.
We welcome the Secretary of State's rediscovery of the importance of cottage and community hospitals and the particular role that they can play in helping patients to recover from major surgery. Will he therefore explain why the Government have closed 245 such hospitals in the past five years? We welcome the proposals for salaried GPs employed, for example, by NHS community trusts, and particularly those proposals to help to solve the acute problem of GP recruitment in inner city areas.
I also welcome the Secretary of State's sudden and apparent conversion to the vital principle of equity in the NHS. In appendix A of the White Paper he writes:
"It will be important not to create inequity of resources for patients of different practices."
I quite agree. Where, then, has he been these past five years when so many of the changes made by the Government have quite deliberately created inequity in the NHS? Does he now realise that the creation of two tiers of service for patients is unacceptable in a comprehensive national service? Does the Secretary of State accept what Derek Smith, chairman of King's Healthcare, said on 25 July—that a two-tier health service is now "an everyday reality"? How can the Secretary of State have woken up so belatedly to the reality of what is happening in the delivery of health care?
In relation to dentistry, paragraph 4.7 of the White Paper says:
"patients should continue to have a right to choose the dental practitioner from whom to receive dental treatment".
Does the Secretary of State not recognise, however, that for many people national health service dentistry has in a very real sense ceased to exist altogether? Does not this reveal that what he is doing in much of the document is starting to repair some of the damage that the Government have caused in the first place? It is a bit like an arsonist saying sorry and starting to rebuild the very house that he has destroyed. Is not the whole document an admission that single practice fundholding is not necessarily the panacea that the Government have always claimed it to be?
Does the Secretary of State realise that, this afternoon, the Government have for the first time recognised that GP commissioning is happening and is providing real benefits to GPs and patients alike? Will he now embrace Labour party policy on GP commissioning as the way forward?
One proposal in the document fills Opposition Members with particular alarm. Paragraph 2.4 talks of
"a salaried option for GPs, either within partnerships or with other bodies"
Paragraph 8 of appendix A states:
"Ordinary contracts would be used when services were provided outside the NHS".
594
Does not that reveal that the Government's real agenda is allowing primary care GP services to be provided by private commercial companies? Would not the proposal tear at the very roots of the public service ethos of general practice?
The GP service, with its fierce independent professionalism, has been the foundation stone of the NHS for 50 years. The relationship between GP and patient has been uniquely important for the British health system, but that relationship will be fundamentally undermined if GPs are employed and their services provided by private sector companies ranging from pharmaceuticals to supermarkets. The professional integrity of the GP must be sustained and the Government's proposal puts it at risk.
We applaud the Secretary of State's conversion to the cause of equity, to the importance of cottage hospitals, to the need to solve the problems of the inner cities and to the value of GP commissioning, but I urge him to think again before he goes down the road to a privatised commercialised GP service. Opposition Members want none of it.
Mr. Dorrell: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I believe that in an earlier brief he was told to think the unthinkable. I am not sure that he was regarded as a great success there; I hope that he will prove to be a more flexible thinker about health policy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me first about equity of resources. Listening to him, it was hard to remember that it was this Government who introduced the weighted capitation system, precisely to ensure that the historically inequitable distribution of resources as between one part of the country and another was remedied. It is this Government who, every year since the implementation of the reformed health service management structure, have moved the funding of the health service closer to the targets provided by that weighted capitation formula.
So I do not accept for one moment the idea that we have not, consistently and in practice, been interested in dealing equitably with the resources of the health service, directing them to the areas of greatest health need. Indeed, this was one of the very subjects that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health discussed in the primary care listening exercise: to ensure that resources in the primary care world flowed in a more equitable direction. That was one of the principal objectives of the more flexible management system that I have described and which we are committed to introducing.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about cottage hospitals. Of course it is true that hospitals in various parts of the country will open and close facilities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can quote examples of certain hospitals closing when they come to the end of their useful lives. But there are not many Health Secretaries who can report to the House that they have been to Devonshire, or anywhere else, and opened two brand new hospitals on the same day. That is exactly what I did earlier this year.
The Government have been developing new community hospitals, and the fundholding scheme, which the hon. Gentleman loves to hate, has been one of the most effective mechanisms for reopening and underpinning the viability of cottage and community hospitals in the national health service.

595
That brings me to the principle of GP choice: the choice exercised by the general practitioner as to the best model of care to meet the needs of his or her patients. That is the principle on which this document is based. We look for new ways of delivering high-quality primary care which reflect the ideas of those who have to deliver that care.
The hon. Gentleman's party likes to espouse this cause, but then immediately makes it clear that it would remove from the table the one option that has been chosen by GPs serving 58 per cent. of the patients of this country—namely, the fundholding scheme. How can the hon. Gentleman deploy rhetoric in favour of GP choice while at the same time supporting the abolition of the fundholding scheme that has been chosen by a majority of the GPs of Britain?
Finally, the hon. Gentleman likes to raise the Aunt Sally of privatisation. I made it crystal clear in my statement that I am talking about producing a different way of delivering NHS primary care on the same terms as NHS primary care is currently available—the same charging regime for dentistry, free in general practice. Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman this afternoon avoided the simple proposition that the whole of NHS primary care since Nye Bevan's original NHS Act 1946 has been delivered by private contractors responding to contracts with the national health service—
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Independent.
Mr. Dorrell: Not all independent. The pharmacist Boots is a profit-making company—
Mr. Morgan: Not private.
Mr. Dorrell: I was under the illusion that it was private. Boots delivers a key NHS service as an NHS pharmacy. It is a contractor delivering an NHS service. So the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is completely wrong to say that these proposals would let the private sector into NHS primary care for the first time. Ironically, the proposals would let trusts, the public sector, into NHS primary care for the first time. Until now, NHS primary care has been the exclusive preserve of private contractors delivering an NHS service in response to an NHS contract. I want to make that contracting regime more flexible, the better to meet the needs of patients.
Dame Jill Knight: Did my right hon. Friend notice an historic, perhaps even unique, event on the radio this morning, when the chairman of the British Medical Association gave his full backing to the White Paper? Is not that a first and does not it make complete nonsense of much of what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)?
Can my right hon. Friend be a little more specific about the services he envisages will be provided by optometrists? He said that he wants shared care and an extension of services for patients.
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to say that it is unusual, if not unique, for me to appear on the "Today" programme alongside Dr. Sandy Macara and receive his unqualified blessing for my
596
proposals, as I did this morning. I am pleased to say that his support is reflected not just by the British Medical Association but by the British Dental Association and the other professional groups that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health consulted.
The purpose of my hon. Friend's exercise was to develop a consensus in the professions about how primary care can best develop. That was reflected in the document that we published in June and it underlies the legislative proposals that I have announced this afternoon. It would be nice if those on the Opposition Front Bench shared in the consensus with those who are responsible for delivering services to patients.
As for the role of optometrists, there will be major opportunities to integrate optometrists more effectively into the primary care team; to consider the relationship between optometrists and general practitioners to ensure a proper flow of information; and to consider the arrangements for referral from optometry to the secondary care services. Those are the options for the development of optometry in integrated NHS primary health care and we shall cover them in more detail later this year in the document to which I have referred.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Of course I join the Secretary of State in wanting a higher quality and more accessible health service that is tailored to the needs of different communities. That would be a good step forward. There are, however, differences of view between him, some of his colleagues and people in and outside the House about whether all is right with the health service at the moment, and the changes that are needed.
I ask the Secretary of State for five simple assurances. Can we have the resources that it is objectively agreed the health service needs? Can we have the additional staffing that is regarded as necessary even by independent pay review bodies? Can we have some national co-ordination, which does not currently exist? Given the announcement today in particular, can we have an assurance that the new primary care system will be free from commercial profit-making at the expense of the health service? Can we be assured that companies, whether Tesco or Asda, Tarmac or Wimpey, will not be able to employ people in the health service and make profits for the private sector at the expense of patients?
Mr. David Congdon: What about Boots?
Mr. Hughes: Not Boots, which is a drug company that deals with pharmacists; I mean any company that could employ GPs.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises a huge range of issues that I cannot deal with in any substance in an answer to a question. We shall continue to ensure that the staffing is available to deliver the kind of service we describe. I must point out, as the Prime Minister did a few moments ago, that we have seen a huge growth in NHS staffing since 1979—[Interruption.]—in clinical staffing, and we have also seen a huge increase in the resources available to the health service, including £4.8 billion over and above inflation in this Parliament alone. Staffing and resources continue to be key concerns of any Health Secretary, as does proper co-ordination.

597
The hon. Gentleman seems to believe, somehow, in a pure service with no profit motive, which is the only sort that he conceives can be of benefit to patients. Life is much more complex than that. Boots delivers an NHS service: the NHS pharmacy service. Boots and every other NHS pharmacist deliver that service for a profit. The independent contractors who deliver NHS general practice also do it for a living—that is to say, for a profit. Drug companies that sell drugs through the dispensing service do it for a profit. I am interested in a proper reward for those who deliver an efficient, high-quality service for the patient. Provided that I am satisfied that those tests are passed, I am willing to consider proposals made with the support of the professional staff concerned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The last hon. Member who put a question asked five questions. That is totally unfair, but I allowed him to do so because he speaks for his party on these matters. That was the only reason. Given the number of hon. Members who seek to put questions on this statement, I cannot be fair and call them if we have long questions and long answers. I am sure that the House will oblige: I want brisk questions and brisk answers.
Sir Roger Sims: As my right hon. Friend will realise, an increasing role will need to be played by nurses, particularly district nurses, health visitors and practice nurses. It is now four years since Parliament approved legislation to enable nurses to prescribe yet we are still waiting for the evaluation of the first pilot sites. Will my right hon. Friend give more priority to nurse prescribing and expedite its implementation?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to an important point. Some real benefits can be secured through the extension of nurse prescribing provided that it is done in a properly evaluated and disciplined way. The Government are committed to that process. The practice-based contract concept—one of the specific objectives of this legislation is to allow that concept to be developed—will allow broader scope for nurses to deliver primary care services, subject to proper medical oversight. That will allow the development of the independent professional nursing practice that my hon. Friend seeks. It is an attractive option, but it must be introduced in a properly disciplined and controlled way.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: The Secretary of State sought to reassure the House that the Government provide for a fair and equitable distribution of NHS resources through their capitation funding formula, but he has forgotten that that funding formula applies to hospitals, not to primary care, which is the subject of this statement. Is he aware that present funding for Cornwall health authority provides enough money for one GP for every 1,660 people in Cornwall, while the funding for Rotherham provides only for one GP for every 2,250 people? What will he do to distribute primary health care money equitably? If he does not distribute it equitably, all his proposals for buying in care from salaried doctors will mean nothing, because the purchasers of care will not have the money to do it.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to what I said. I specifically said that the
598
extension of the weighted capitation basis of funding to primary care was one of the issues that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health raised in the listening exercise and is one of the issues that we are working on.
Mr. David Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the vital importance of GP fundholding to primary care? Is he aware that Bury has one of the largest numbers of fundholders in the country? When I meet those fundholders next month, may I confirm that the reports in the press about a change in Labour party policy are totally untrue, and that the Labour party remains committed to abolishing fundholding and all the services that it provides? In the unlikely event of a Labour Government, that step would do great damage to my constituents.
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that today I was given a document entitled "The Labour Party Policy Handbook 1996"—dateline October 1996. My hon. Friend will be interested to hear that it is in loose-leaf format, so clearly a certain flexibility is intended. With that caveat, the document—it was published within the last 14 days, so it is hot off the press—says that it is Labour party policy to replace fundholding with GP commissioning. I understand the word "replace" to mean that one thing will take the place of another—in other words, fundholding will be abolished. Every GP fundholder, servicing 58 per cent. of patients in this country, should take that into account as we approach the election. The Labour party would abolish fundholding—the option that has been chosen as being in the interests of 58 per cent. of patients.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Secretary of State assure us that the worrying closures of community pharmacies will cease? Is he aware that pharmacies fear the abolition of retail price maintenance and that I have received many petitions about the matter? Supermarkets can close community pharmacies.
Mr. Dorrell: The question of retail price maintenance falls outside the specific responsibility of the Department of Health, and I do not accept that its abolition has inevitable consequences for the viability of the pharmacy network.
I am committed to the development of NHS pharmacy as a key element of primary health care. One simple statistic makes that clear: 3 million people go to pharmacists every day for some kind of health or health-related product. It is a key element in the primary health care team and in the delivery of an integrated national health service in Britain.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am at least as great a supporter of the purchaser-provider split as Dr. Sandy Macara, but my right hon. Friend may be aware that in west Kent we are suffering badly as a result of the purchasing authority's failure to control the over-expenditure of fundholding GPs. That is seriously damaging the morale of non-fundholding GPs and provider trusts, which are performing extremely well. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to investigate how that situation may be improved in future, and how we may mitigate the damage done so far?
Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly look at the position in Kent, as my hon. Friend has suggested. The responsibility

599
to live within a fundholder's budget rests primarily with the fundholder rather than with the health authority. If there is a problem with over-spending fundholders in my hon. Friend's constituency, the principal responsibility for addressing it rests with the fundholders. However, I shall examine that issue.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I welcome the Government's much-needed U-turn on community hospitals. Does the Secretary of State agree that every town of any size should have a proper, modern community hospital, that that will be facilitated and that the private finance initiative, which has held back many community hospital schemes, will not be used in that way any longer? Local authorities should be allowed to proceed without going down that delaying route.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. The PFI does not hold back community and cottage hospitals: it is the means by which community and cottage hospital projects may go ahead, if there is demand in the area, without having to wait for the capital flow to be approved by the Department of Health and the collective processes of Government.
As to the hon. Gentleman's allegation that this is a U-turn, the most powerful weapon for re-establishing and expanding support for community and cottage hospitals in Britain is the GP fundholding scheme that the Government introduced in 1991. Fundholders, acting on behalf of their patients, have made it clear that they want local community hospitals and are prepared to be involved in the management of medical cover within those hospitals in order to ensure more local care delivery to their patients. That approach is dead right, and I am happy to endorse it.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I practised as a physician in the national health service for a number of years. However, he may not be aware that I was on the receiving end of NHS services for much of the recess and thus was able to do a good deal of consumer research. Apart from the superb accident and emergency and in-patient treatment that I received, the most profound and agreeable aspect of my treatment—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Private.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: NHS, and it always has been for every member of my family. There was superb liaison between GPs, district and community nurses and pharmacists—it could not be better. Is that not an example of Conservative policies raising the level of service for the benefit of the whole community?
Mr. Dorrell: I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend back from whatever problem he encountered. He is a clear example of the NHS having worked successfully. I am pleased also to be able to congratulate him on his recovery. His experience—the service he received—is the experience of the huge majority of NHS patients. People regularly say, "I have been lucky." But people who receive high-quality care from the NHS are not lucky; it is the overwhelming experience of the majority of NHS patients.
600
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in recording the fact that the care delivered by today's practitioners and professional staff within the NHS is without historical parallel. It is better than it has ever been. It is the Government's determination that it should continue to get better. We shall continue to give those within the NHS the tools to ensure that that happens.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is a clear distinction between those who have treatment in the NHS and praise the nurses and the doctors for helping them to get well, and those who take a political stance in the knowledge that, after 17 years of Tory rule, NHS staff are fed up with the way in which the Government are ruining the health service?
Is it not true that most cottage hospitals have been turned into private nursing homes to be run by friends of the Tory party? It is a licence to print money. There are more beds in private nursing homes than there are in the entire NHS. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
Mr. Dorrell: It is certainly true that we have seen a huge growth in the number of care beds for the elderly in private nursing and residential homes. We know that 80 per cent. of them are supported by public funds. There is a delivery of quality care to elderly people which was undreamed of 20 years ago. The hon. Gentleman should talk to the staff of the NHS. He will find that the huge majority of them are proud of the service that they deliver. Of course they want to deliver more service, but they recognise that the service that they have been delivering has been developing and growing and treating more patients year by year since 1979. They deliver and they know that it is a growing service.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having had to use the services of a non-fundholding practice during the summer recess on two occasions, may I vouch for the excellent quality and speed of service that such practices provide? Having visited a community pharmacy at its request to see the valuable job that it does, may I endorse what has been said about the vital part that such pharmacies play in the community?
To pick up the point of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about the problems that they will encounter as a result of the activities of the superstores—may I say that I have managed to obtain the services of a salaried dentist for my constituency, there having been inadequate NHS dentistry?—I can vouch for the flexibility of the NHS, which appears to be the main feature of my right hon. Friend's statement. Am I right in saying that the Government have pledged to spend more on the NHS above the rate of inflation for every year that we Conservatives are in government after the next election?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right in almost everything that he has said. In particular, he is right to say that we are committed to continue to support a growing and more flexible health service. As he rightly said, flexibility is the main purport of the proposals that I have announced this afternoon.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I endorse the comments about community pharmacies, which want to play a bigger role. The Minister has said, "if pilots are successful". He has said also that they will be monitored and

601
"the results will be evaluated."
Is that an admission that, at an earlier stage of reform of the NHS, pilot studies were not evaluated and that we went down the road of reform far too fast without having the facts before us? Is a plea being made for more certainty on this occasion?
Mr. Dorrell: When we introduced pilot fundholding in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, a number of general practitioners who saw the fundholding scheme in operation decided that they wanted to join it. They saw how they could deliver best care to their patients. That was their evidence. The numbers have grown, and now 58 per cent. of patients are covered by the fundholding scheme. I regard pilot fundholding as having succeeded.
The majority of GPs now want to apply the scheme to the benefit of their patients. I have set out in my statement the way in which we intend to pilot a range of different contracting models to ascertain which ones best deliver the claims made for them. What we shall probably find, I suspect, is that some will work in some areas and others will work in other areas and people will learn by the experience of having piloted them.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate GP fundholders, such as Dr. Brian Golden in my constituency, who have used the opportunities presented by fundholding to perform many more minor operations in the surgery rather than the hospital; who have widened the number of clinics on offer; and who have substantially reduced waiting lists? Is this not the sort of progress that most people welcome, even if the Opposition want to get rid of it?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right on every count. Fundholding has been a huge success. That is not to undermine the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—that there are plenty of high-quality GPs who choose not to be fundholders.
Mr. Kevin Barron: What about the 42 per cent?
Mr. Dorrell: I was just talking about them, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself in silence for a moment.
There are non-fundholding GPs who also deliver high-quality service—that is perfectly true—but fundholders have been at the cutting edge of the changes in the relationship between primary and secondary care, and some of them have delivered stunning improvements in the quality of care that they deliver to their patients.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Secretary of State agree that one service that GPs need to retain is the right to send patients to the hospital of their choice? What will he do about the right and the choice of GPs who want to send their patients to the Hillingdon hospital trust if they happen to be over 75 years of age? What choice will GPs in Halifax have to send patients to the new hospital when it is built and the number of beds is reduced from 850 to 500? Will that be a cut-off point based on age?
Mr. Dorrell: The position in Hillingdon is that the patients who are being talked about are those who live in
602
the environs of Mount Vernon hospital, for whom there is an elderly assessment unit at that hospital. If local GPs want to shift the resources and the service from Mount Vernon to Hillingdon, that is something that they can negotiate, but it does not make much sense to provide the facility at Mount Vernon and send the patients to Hillingdon. That is the proposition that we are asked to endorse this afternoon, and frankly it seems to me to be pretty silly.
In terms of GP choice, the best way for a GP to ensure that he or she can refer his or her patients to the hospital of choice is by becoming a fundholder, because a fundholder is free to place the contract with whichever hospital they choose. If a GP is not a fundholder, every health authority is under an obligation to discuss with its GPs where facilities are provided. On other occasions, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is very fond of pointing out that there is a range of different models for consulting GPs, between the health authority and GPs, which have grown up throughout the country and are not fundholding. Fundholding gives the doctor the right to decide all these other models, which the hon. Gentleman quite rightly on other occasions—
Ms Tessa Jowell indicated dissent.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady cannot just dismiss them, because all her friends on the Labour Front Bench like to talk these schemes up. There seems to be a bit of a muddle about what Labour policy is. These commissioning schemes allow GPs to be consultees, whereas fundholding allows them to decide it for themselves.
Mr. Congdon: May I welcome the extra flexibility that the White Paper provides for community pharmacists, whether they make a profit or whether they are Boots? Does my right hon. Friend agree that community pharmacists often provide a valuable service to people whether or not they have recently visited their local GP? Will he consider further measures to extend the range of drugs that pharmacists can dispense without prescription?
Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, that matter is subject to constant review. It is important that drugs that do not need, from a medical safety point of view, the control of prescription access should not be on that list when they do not need to be. That is subject to regular review, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish those decisions to be made on anything other than medical safety grounds.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is it not unfortunate that a significant proportion of resources provided by health authorities are now based on deficit and debt? Is the Minister aware that his departmental answer to me of 22 July refused to provide figures showing the degree of NHS debt on the basis that they were not suitable for publication? He has not, as he knows, replied to my letter on that subject of 31 July. Will he be present himself in the House tomorrow evening to answer an Adjournment debate on both those particulars of failure?
Mr. Dorrell: I cannot undertake to be present in the House to respond to the debate, but I shall undertake to ensure that I know what will be said before it is said.
Mr. Max Madden: What proposals are contained in the White Paper for tackling the drugs

603
crisis now gripping much of Britain, including our inner cities, particularly with regard to the national provision of drug treatment centres and guidance to GPs and pharmacies to prescribe methadone, thereby reducing hard drug dependency?
Mr. Dorrell: The range of services provided to people suffering from drug abuse is subject to national monitoring and some national guidance in ten-ns of protocols and the kind of services which are most effective. Evidence is collected nationally, but it is far better that the service should be designed locally. The more flexible contracting regime which will be delivered by the proposals may well have a significant role in ensuring that we are better able to meet the needs of the type of patient whom the hon. Gentleman describes.
Mr. John Gunnell: What new money goes with these proposals? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to tell us that he will legislate as soon as possible, but what new money, not in the health service already, will accompany the proposals, which clearly depend upon adequate resources?
Mr. Dorrell: I have not come to make an announcement about money this afternoon; I have come to make an announcement about proposals for legislative change. But if the Government's record is anything to go by, it will be a lot more than £100 million.
Mr. Richard Burden: The announcement has some welcome aspects, but initiatives in primary care are unlikely to be effective if they are grafted on to a system of contracting that encourages short-term thinking when already too many community services do not know what they are doing from one year to the next. Will the Secretary of State review the time scales of contracts so that we have proper commissioning rather than short-term fixing year on year?
With regard to money. may I press the right hon. Gentleman on one specific issue? Appendix A refers to money for the pilots being ring-fenced. Is that new money and, whether or not it is, how much will be ring-fenced?
Mr. Dorrell: It is not new money and does not need to be new money, because we are talking about the delivery of primary care services to existing patients with existing practitioners. We are talking about ring-fencing the existing pool system for the remuneration of doctors and dentists so that the individual doctor and dentist does not have his remuneration undermined or distorted by the development of the pilots. That is what ring-fencing means in that context.
The hon. Gentleman repeats the assertion that the Government are in favour of short-term annual contracts. We have said repeatedly, and I said it again in May this year when I published some material on improving the efficiency of NHS bureaucracy, that I am in favour of a medium-term perspective in the contracts. I certainly am not in favour of an artificial requirement that every contract should be placed for one year. That never has been the Government's policy, however often it is asserted from the Opposition Benches that it is.
Mr. William O'Brien: What advice does the Secretary of State have for GPs who are concerned
604
that there is a shortage of acute beds in hospitals for the mentally ill, particularly in the Wakefield area, where the Secretary of State knows that the amalgamation of two hospitals will reduce the number of acute beds?
Mr. Dorrell: I have repeatedly made it clear, and it is being delivered by the NHS, that we need to deliver acute hospital beds for those who are acutely mentally ill, just as we need to deliver acute hospital beds for those who are acutely physically ill. I am not in favour of continuing to provide many long-stay isolated mental illness beds in traditional mental illness hospitals when better models of care are available which provide proper support in the community, nursing home support for people who need nursing homes and a range of other facilities, but, where people need acute mental illness beds, those are being provided, often in acute mental illness units that have been the result of the investment boom of which the Pritne Minister spoke when answering questions earlier.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Secretary of State has said that he praised fundholders, but in our region we have evidence of fundholders refusing to put old people on their practice lists. In fact, they are not even refusing them. They are throwing them off the list and other doctors who are not fundholders are having to pick them up. That is not good enough, and will the Secretary of State do something about it?
Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Gentleman made that accusation with a name attached to it outside the House, it would be a serious charge of professional misconduct.
Mr. Campbell: I will bring the case to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman should indeed bring the case to me, because, if he does so, he will find it referred to the General Medical Council for unethical conduct.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my local district general hospital, the Lancaster royal infirmary, will shortly be the first hospital to incorporate a dedicated blood transfusion service? Will he consider doing us the honour of opening it?
Mr. Dorrell: I should be delighted to respond to an invitation that my hon. Friend presses on me and I hope that it will be possible to fit it into my schedule.
Madam Speaker: That was not referred to in the statement that I heard.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to apologise to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in Britain who are deprived of primary dental care? In my constituency, a small group in the town of Milford Haven have had to band together and hire a mini-van to transport themselves 30 miles to a dentist who will treat them. That is not uncommon throughout rural Wales. Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that his measures in the White Paper will deal with that major problem—in one constituency in north Wales, there is no NHS dentist at

605
all—and that we can return to the position 10 years ago when, in my constituency, every dentist was providing NHS care, whereas now we have only three?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield says that he already has a salaried dentist in his constituency. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) asks that we return to the position of 10 or perhaps 17 years ago. He would like to return to the position 17 years ago in NHS dentistry. That would mean a reduction of roughly one third in the number of NHS courses of dental treatment delivered.
Mr. Ainger indicated dissent.
Mr. Dorrell: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Adult courses of dentistry received and paid for in NHS terms have risen from 17 million in 1979 to just short of 25 million in 1995. That is an increase in NHS dentistry activity of 46 per cent. It is an inconvenient fact, given the sort of assertions that the hon. Gentleman likes to make. I would not argue—I do not argue—that there are no problems in NHS dentistry. That is why we are introducing the proposals to make the system more flexible, but the hon. Gentleman should not assert that NHS dentistry is in retreat—
Mr. Ainger: It is.
Mr. Dorrell: It is no good saying that it is. I have quoted the facts to the hon. Gentleman. The facts are that there were 17 million courses of treatment in the time that he referred to as a golden age and that there are 25 million courses of treatment now.
Mr. John Battle: I do not know where the Secretary of State gets his facts, but many of my constituents cannot get an NHS dentist because the NHS dentists have pulled out and gone private. How will the White Paper help those constituents? Is not this word "choice", which Ministers utter, an increasingly empty word that means the Hobson's choice of going without because, in practice, NHS dentistry has been privatised?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have shown clearly that it is not true to say that NHS dentistry is being privatised. I acknowledge that there are problems with the provision of NHS dentistry, which is why we have introduced these proposals to make the regime under which NHS dentistry is provided more flexible and to allow health authorities to target resources on areas where there is a problem with access.
Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced changes in the remuneration of dentists under the present contractual arrangements. Resources will be targeted specifically on dental services for children to ensure that that provision receives priority. We are responding to problems of access to NHS dentistry as they arise. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield referred to another example of how that is being done.
Neither of the assertions of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is true. It is not true to say that NHS dentistry is a service in retreat. It is true to say that there are some problems, but we are dealing with them.

Madam Speaker's Statement
4.24 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make on a matter of privilege. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has written to me about information that came to light during the parliamentary recess alleging that, in 1994, improper pressure was brought to bear on the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I am satisfied that the matter should have the precedence accorded to matters of privilege. The hon. Member is thus entitled to table a motion for consideration by the House as its first business tomorrow at 3.30 pm.

Class Size (Reduction)
4.25 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce the numbers of children taught in classes in schools.
My Bill would set a limit of no more than 30 children in any class in any school within the next five years. It would review ways of achieving smaller classes for children who have special educational needs—physical or psychological—or who are learning English as a second language or who have very low attainment levels.
Why is the Bill needed? According to official figures, 40 per cent. of primary school age children in England are being taught in classes of more than 30, and the percentage is worsening. In January 1995, 1.6 million primary school children were in classes of more than 30, which is a 7 per cent. increase on the previous year and a 24 per cent. increase since 1991. The number of classes with more than 40 children has risen even faster—27 per cent. in the year to January 1995—to 18,000. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy says:
"average class sizes in primary schools are rapidly increasing."
Primary class sizes in England are now among the least favourable in OECD countries, and the gap is getting wider.
There are 400,000 secondary school pupils in classes of more than 30. Class sizes are rising in that sector too. Since the mid-1980s, secondary schools have lost more than one in five of their mathematics and English teachers. The Observer of 1 Sept this year noted that despite the fact that the school age population is set to rise this year by 100,000, the Department for Education and Employment plans to recruit only 85 more teachers. Each year since 1992, the intake of new primary school teachers has fallen. There is a shortfall of 2,000 teachers in the secondary sector if the Government's own targets are to be met, so there is a looming crisis in mathematics, science and English teaching.
The Department for Education and Employment continues to claim that there is no teacher shortage and refuses to acknowledge the effect of class sizes on children's attainment. Meanwhile, more than one third of 14-year-olds are not mastering basic mathematics, English or science, and one in six adults has severe difficulty with literacy and numeracy.
The evidence shows the advantage of smaller class sizes. Despite the Government's refusal to sponsor detailed research studies, several such studies have been undertaken which clearly show that the smaller the class size the better the performance of pupils. STAR, the student-teacher ratio project in Tennessee, found that
"pupils in small classes consistently out performed pupils in larger classes"
and that
"children from deprived backgrounds benefited the most from learning in this environment."
Mortimore and Blatchford concluded that smaller classes led to greater progress in reading and mathematics for eight-year-olds. They said that the results of smaller classes were "impressive and consistent". There appears to be particular advantage for pupils from ethnic minorities. In addition, the benefits are long-lasting.
608
Studies show that schoolchildren taught in smaller classes were still benefiting at the age of 12. Mortimore and Blatchford state that, in direct contradiction to Ministers' pronouncements that class sizes are unimportant, it can justifiably be said that it is incorrect to state that there is no proven connection between class size and attainment.
Ofsted's report, "Class Size and the Quality of Education", in November last year said:
"small class sizes are of benefit in the early years of primary education."
It added:
"pupils with special needs frequently make greater progress when they are taught in smaller classes."
Ofsted maintained that teaching methods were more important for attainment than class sizes, but Maurice Galton, writing in the Educational Review in the summer, made clear that the two are linked. He said:
"Challenging high levels of interaction, involving in particular challenging questioning and feedback, are crucial determinants of pupil progress."
High levels of interaction can be best achieved in smaller classes.
The National Commission on Education's report, "Learning to Succeed", said that, within five years, no primary school child should be in a class of more than 30. The National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations supports a class size limit of 30. Private schools have pupil-teacher ratios of 10:6. They clearly regard low class sizes as important. There is much evidence to support the need for low class sizes.
What would be the cost of my proposal? Based on the recent survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research, 6,000 more teachers would be needed to cover 39,385 classes. That would cost £156 million. The assisted places scheme will cost £161 million by 1998. By phasing that scheme out over five years, all class sizes could be reduced to a maximum of 30 in the same period. To quote the slogan of the Tory party conference, that would mean opportunity for all. Alternatively, the cost could be met by reducing wasteful spending in other Ministries.
Ofsted has suggested that reducing class sizes would cost an enormous sum—more than £500 million. It included in its calculation large extra transport costs and additional accommodation requirements. Such costs have not been incurred as class sizes have risen, so why should they be taken into account when numbers fall to earlier class size ratios? Ofsted's figures are a crude and unsubstantiated guesstimate. They are much less worked out than those of the National Foundation for Educational Research, which stands by its calculations.
There has been virtually no detailed research in the past decade into relevant class sizes in secondary schools. Most studies have concentrated on primary teaching. Although I acknowledge that that sector is vital for imparting learning skills, smaller class sizes would also benefit secondary school pupils. There is a widespread assumption of failure; that many in the secondary sector are already lost to education. That assumption should not be accepted. There are fewer large classes in secondary schools than there are in primary schools, so the cost of achieving the 30 limit in the secondary sector would be low. Education strategies concentrate on early schooling

609
and better training after leaving school. Ensuring low class sizes would fill the gap by improving learning in secondary schools, too.
I turn to the Labour party's commitment. While the Government are letting class sizes rise inexorably, claiming that it does not matter, the Labour party is pledging as a manifesto commitment to bring class sizes down to 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds. That commitment is important and most welcome, but I consider it too cautious. It would not cover all primary or any secondary school pupils. Like my Labour party colleagues, I want to take forward the debate on better education. Much of the brouhaha over teaching methods is a smokescreen. That is not to say that such methods are unimportant—they are. However, they are also a cover-up for cost reduction. They are used to avoid consideration of the consequences of rising class sizes.
Most teachers are working longer hours —in primary schools two hours a week, and in secondary schools 1.4 hours a week longer than two years ago. Many teachers have been sacked or replaced by less experienced, less costly ones due to Government education cuts. Exclusions have soared: in 1993–94 there were 11,181. Greater pressure on teachers as a result of less controllable, larger classes is a factor in that.
There has also been a chronic lack of investment in school buildings and books. Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools recently reported that 3,700 schools do not have enough books. Last year, investment in buildings amounted to only £69 per pupil in state schools—it was £551 per pupil in private schools. In addition to those factors, larger class sizes is a key indicator of the extent of this Conservative Government's neglect of our schools. Rising class sizes is both a symptom and a cause of the crisis in our schools. My Bill attempts to stop the rot.
4.35 pm
Mr. Matthew Carrington: I oppose the Bill, but not because my hon. Friends and I are against smaller class sizes in schools—far from it. The Government have an excellent record on reducing class sizes—indeed, class sizes are now smaller than they were when this Conservative Government were first elected.
My concern about the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is that it is a red herring—or, perhaps in the hon. Gentleman's case, a very old Labour herring. The Bill does not tackle what is the largest problem in our schools and what should be even the hon. Gentleman's first priority—the quality of education provided for pupils. The Bill will not improve the excellence of the teaching, or the results achieved by students. Class size has little influence on those, as has been confirmed many times by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. Proof of that is easily found in other countries. In Japan, class sizes for mathematics are generally much larger than in our schools, yet pupil attainment is better in all age groups in Japanese schools than in England.
Although reducing class sizes is desirable, it should not be the first priority, which is to raise standards in our schools. Teacher training and parental choice are much more important in achieving that. The hon. Member for Leyton proposes paying for smaller class sizes by using
610
the money currently used for the assisted places scheme. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that scheme, even though it increases parental choice and gives opportunities to children from less well-off families who will benefit from the sort of education the independent sector can provide. However, the hon. Gentleman is also mistaken in his sums.
If the assisted places scheme were done away with, the pupils currently benefiting from it would have to be found places in the state sector. That, in itself, would push up class sizes in the short term. In addition, providing those extra school places would cost more than three quarters of the money saved by the abolition of assisted places. The remaining quarter—which, by the most generous estimate, would amount only to some £60 million by the time the Bill came into effect—would not be sufficient to fund the reduction in class sizes. As the hon. Member for Leyton admitted, he has overlooked the additional cost of providing new classrooms, which would add greatly to the overall bill.
A more realistic estimate of the cost of reducing class sizes in the way the hon. Member for Leyton proposes would be £180 million—three times the Labour party's figure. The hon. Gentleman's proposal, far from being self-financing, would require well in excess of £120 million to be raised from the taxpayer to pay for it.
Another reason why I oppose the Bill is that I wish to save the hon. Member for Leyton from himself. All hon. Members are very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes around proposing tax increases—as he clearly did in his speech—he will draw down on himself the wrath of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). No hon. Member could bear the painful sight of the hon. Member for Leyton being disciplined by the shadow Chancellor. For that reason, if for no other, I urge him not to proceed with his Bill. His many friends on this side of the House fear for his safety if he does proceed with it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Harry Barnes. Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Mike Gapes, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Peter L. Pike, Mr. Gerry Steinberg and Mr. David Winnick.

CLASS SIZE (REDUCTION)
Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to reduce the numbers of children taught in classes in schools: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

DEFENCE ESTIMATES
[SECOND DAY]
[Relevant document: The Seventh Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1995–96, entitled 'Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996', House of Commons Paper No. 215.]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [14 October]:
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996 contained in Cm. 3223.
Which amendment was: to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996; condemns the instability caused to Britain's armed forces by Government mismanagement; recognises that the UK defence industry is a strategic national asset in both defence and economic terms; notes that the shortfall in the strength of the British Army numbers 4000 personnel; is concerned that the resulting overstretch is undermining the morale and operational effectiveness of the armed forces; condemns the manner in which the defence forces and defence industry are being run down in an ad hoc and piecemeal way; recognises that the armed forces and defence industry require a long-term strategic overview which can only be achieved through the establishment of a strategic defence review; condemns the continued financial waste and mismanagement by Ministers; urges the Government to take action to address the world landmine crisis and to ban the export, import and transfer of all forms of anti-personnel landmine; urges a positive approach to the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty negotiations; and congratulates the work carried out by British forces in the defence of Britain and her interests in helping to maintain international stability in peacekeeping operations throughout the world'—[Dr. David Clark.]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
4.40 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): It is an honour for me to continue this debate on the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Before I do so, I am very pleased to be able to tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has today announced that Her Majesty the Queen has approved the appointment of General Sir Charles Guthrie as Chief of the Defence Staff, in succession to Field Marshall Sir Peter Inge, in April 1997.
As the Government's principal military adviser, the post of Chief of the Defence Staff requires an individual with personal qualities and abilities of the highest order. As he has demonstrated throughout his long and distinguished career, General Guthrie has enormous ability, admirable personal skills and a tremendous record of service experience and leadership, and is much admired throughout the armed forces. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in congratulating General Guthrie and in wishing him well when he takes up this appointment.
In his opening speech yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stressed the importance of our continuing drive to achieve value for money in defence, concentrating resources on the front line, arid of our support for the front line. Today's armed forces face new challenges. We are in an era when, as the late Manfred Woerner once said:
"We have less threat, but less peace."
612
More than ever, the services must be extremely flexible and very resilient, with highly capable equipment.
The major investment in equipment made by the Government means that our forces have never been better equipped to meet that challenge. Already in service is equipment such as the Sandown single role minehunter, and such equipment is a world leader in its class. The AS90 self-propelled gun is another world leader, and the Harrier family of aircraft is still the most potent of its type in existence. The decisions that we have made in the past 18 months will add enormously to our ability to deploy our forces flexibly and with great power across the range of scenarios that they may have to face in the future.
We are fully committed to maintaining the worldwide reputation of our services for professionalism and excellence. The quality of our people is undoubted, and, wherever they serve, their skills are acknowledged by allies and by new partners in central and eastern Europe. I pay tribute to all the men and women who serve in our armed forces—whether in the tragic ruins of what was once Yugoslavia, the windswept landscape of the Falkland Islands, the heat of the Gulf or the streets of Northern Ireland. They require and deserve no less than the best equipment that can be provided to meet their needs.
That policy allows them not only to perform the demanding tasks we require of them efficiently and effectively, but can mean the difference between life and death. It is because of the importance that we attach to the equipping of our forces that I wish to devote this speech to our procurement policies and to the vision we have for procurement in the future.
Since the early 1980s, we have seen a revolution in our procurement practices. Chief among those was the adoption of an aggressive competition policy, placing contracts on the basis of best overall value for money. That policy has benefited the taxpayer, the services and, in world markets, British industry. Reviewing those initiatives in its report "Procurement in the 90s", the National Audit Office concluded that our systems were
"essentially sound and compare well with defence organisations overseas".
The House will he aware that, earlier this year, we responded positively to the report entitled "Aspects of Defence Procurement and Industrial Policy" by a joint Select Committee on defence and trade and industry matters. In parallel, my Department carried out its own review of its procurement policies. At the heart of our study was a concern that the unbridled pursuit of competition without regard to the supplier base might, over time, threaten both the capacity and the capability of the UK defence industry.
It is self-evident that, if we are to continue to benefit from our competition policy, we have a vested interest in ensuring that our supplier base is efficient, effective and capable of meeting our needs—not only in the short but in the longer term.
Mr. Eric Clarke: The Ministry of Defence has given a contract to Racal for radar, and there has been a great deal of disappointment not only in my constituency but in the Lothians generally. That is particularly true because GEC Marconi, through its purchase of Ferranti, has been the leader in radar

613
equipment for Her Majesty's forces. Is it possible that Racal got the contract because it gave money to the Conservative party?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Although I recognise the hon. Gentleman's stalwart work on behalf of his constituency, I am a bit disappointed that he mentions the treatment of a distinguished defence company in that manner. He implies that those who advise the Ministry of Defence are no more capable of distinguishing proper from improper behaviour than he suggests Ministers are. That is an unworthy suggestion, although I do not think that it is one that he would normally make. I hope that he will reconsider it.
We concluded that value for money should remain the cornerstone of UK procurement policy, and we concluded that competition was critical to the achievement of that objective. We are committed to the benefits of competition, unlike the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar). After his speech last night, I am particularly pleased, and a bit surprised, to see him in the House today.
Competition has inspired innovative design and manufacturing change, driven down prices and improved the performance of defence equipment. By encouraging industry to be more efficient, competition has enhanced the competitiveness of UK industry abroad and has contributed significantly to sales success in foreign markets. In itself, that is a positive contribution to sustaining our defence industrial capabilities.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the Ministry of Defence any plans to order replacement vessels for that section of the fleet that is, by and large, concerned with fishery protection duties? Does not the Minister agree that the crews of those vessels perform sterling work, but that in some instances they are crewing aging vessels?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. I should like to write to him in detail. That would be a more satisfactory way of responding than answering off the cuff.
We also concluded that we should give more systematic consideration to defence industrial factors in reaching future procurement decisions. We have always taken industrial factors into account in our procurement processes, but we concluded that we needed a more systematic approach, defining more explicitly the criteria against which we assess the benefit of seeking to retain defence industrial capability. We have carried that work forward with the Department of Trade and Industry in recent months, and the equipment announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July are testimony to the extent to which we have embraced that approach.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is not the Minister saying that, with their new definition of interest, the Government are recognising at last that the market cannot rule on defence procurement, not only because Governments are the major purchasers, but because
614
British industry and much of European industry would otherwise be swamped by competition from the United States?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I said that we had always taken industrial factors into account, but that we needed to do so more systematically. Before the hon. Gentleman attacks the benefits and consequences of market forces too strongly, perhaps he ought to clear his remarks with his own Front Benchers, and with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
Our approach, along with our continued pursuit of the more commercial procurement policies which have proved so successful in past, will ensure that we can provide our armed forces with capable equipment which represents real value for money. However, we are never complacent, and our procurement practices continue to evolve.
For example, we spend some £1 billion a year on high-volume, low-value items—mainly spare parts—with a large number of firms. That carries a disproportionately large administrative cost compared with the value of the items. We are therefore changing the purchasing process to cut out much of the paper-driven bureaucracy. In particular, in line with best practice in industry, we shall introduce electronic data interchange to handle all the activities between ordering and bill payment.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the subject of the procurement of sophisticated equipment, I should like to remind him that, 20 years ago, it was decided that three shipbuilders—Vickers, Cammell Laird and Vosper Thorneycroft—should be designated warship builders. In recent years, we have come dangerously near the point at which only one shipbuilder is available. The contract for Fearless and Intrepid was dealt with on a NAPNOC—no acceptable price, no contract—basis. Does my hon. Friend have a view on the ideal number of shipbuilders which should be available to undertake large, sophisticated shipbuilding?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am pleased to say that we continue to have a good, competitive shipbuilding market in this country. My hon. Friend implies that the award of the type 23 frigate order to Yarrow may undermine competition in our shipbuilding market. We do not consider that to be true. We have every confidence that Vosper Thomycroft, for example, will continue to be a strong and vibrant shipbuilder able to offer competition into the next millennium. That is why it is part of the consortium to produce the common new generation frigate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will regard that as good news for his constituency and for the interests of defence.
We obviously need to work closely with industry to ensure that we can exchange and share data to our mutual benefit. That will help the introduction of new initiatives such as concurrent engineering on programmes, for which we are seeking to cut the time scales in our procurement process without increasing the risks to the Ministry of Defence.
Over the past year, the Ministry has been working with the Confederation of British Industry to formulate guidelines on how a system of partnering might work in Ministry of Defence procurement, allowing both sides to respond to change, to benefit from innovation, to minimise costs and to maximise service development.

615
We shall also test all capital expenditure against the framework of the private finance initiative. We do not have no-go areas, and no minimum level of expenditure is set. Inevitably, not all projects will be suitable for the PFI approach, but the Government and industry are interested in exploring options. Deals covered by the initiative worth more than £200 million have already been signed, and £2 billion-worth of further projects is being considered.
The world strategic situation has changed beyond recognition in recent years, and no less is true of the defence industry. Defence remains big business, but defence expenditure cannot support all the manufacturing capacity or jobs that it once did. Industry has had to adapt to a much reduced global market for its products. It must compete ever more vigorously to survive, with new players in the international market seeking the same goals.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves the issue of the global market, I should like to ask whether he intends to say anything about the policy on land mines. Does he recognise that General Sir Hugh Beach made a powerful case to the all-party land mine group that any mines exported should be of the detectable type, not the relatively undetectable mines which anaesthetise huge areas of agricultural land in the poorest countries of the world?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree that mines should be detectable. We should like any land mines which continue to exist to be of the self-destructing sort, so that they do not pose the dangers to civilian populations which we have seen throughout the world. That is one reason why we have been in the forefront in providing money—nearly £20 million—for the clearance of land mines throughout the world. It is also why we have embraced the concept of abolishing all land mines.
There is a balance to be drawn between the protection of our forces and the protection of civilian populations throughout the world. We do not believe that civilian populations are at risk from the responsible use of land mines, such as that practised by our forces, but we believe that the benefits of a global ban on land mines—if that can be achieved—outweigh the benefits of land mines in the protection of our forces. We very much hope to find an alternative solution to the protection of our forces in the near future.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that British industry was underperforming. I could hardly believe my ears, but then he said it again. He was quite wrong. British industries have restructured to meet the challenges that I have set out, often doing so before their European counterparts. Our companies are now in a competitive position, reporting growing order books, reducing overheads and healthy profits.
Much of that is due to their own laudable efforts, but I believe that some of the impetus has come from the competitive rigour, so deplored by the hon. Member for Warley, West, of our domestic procurement approach. I cannot pretend that the process has been painless. Many jobs have been lost as companies have adjusted to changing markets. That is regrettable, but I believe that the industry's future is now much more secure. It has reduced capacity without sacrificing significant capability or profitability.
616
That reduction in capacity—but not in capability—has often been associated with mergers and acquisitions. That has been less marked in Europe than in the United States, where there has been major restructuring, with the creation of giant corporations such as Lockheed Martin International, which has combined sales worth more than £20 billion. In Europe, the defence industrial scene is far more fragmented, but the rationalisation process is now starting to transcend national frontiers with acquisitions and joint ventures. We welcome that, where the results are sensible commercial alliances across national boundaries. Notable examples include GEC's joint venture with Matra on satellites, GEC-Thomson on sonar and Dowty-Messier on landing gear. These arrangements reflect the commercial recognition that the domestic markets of single European countries are simply not big enough to sustain major companies into the next century.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that commercial interests are best served by demonstrations by our armed services of safe and competent usage of equipment? On that basis, does he agree that there must be an element of RAF low-level flying in Scotland, where we probably take more than our fair share? Does he also agree that RAF air traffic control services must be kept at a high level? Will he join me in commending the safe operation of the Scottish airways by the RAF air traffic controllers at Prestwick?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of preserving low flying, a capability that can be preserved only with actual practice. I also agree with him about the professionalism of both the military and civilian air traffic controllers. I take my hat off to them for the way in which they perform their stressful job. The safety of our airways must be—and will remain—paramount.
UK industry is now well placed to make a full contribution to the rationalisation—
Mr. John Spellar: Before the Minister leaves the subject of air traffic control, will he answer the question posed yesterday on the subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who unfortunately cannot be here because he is at a Western European Union meeting? My hon. Friend asked about the privatisation of the national air traffic control service and the attitude of the Ministry of Defence towards it. Will the Minister also answer the question that I hoped was going to be asked by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), about the maintenance of the facility at Prestwick?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered that question yesterday, and I have nothing to add to what he said then.
UK industry is now well placed to make a full contribution to the rationalisation within Europe—and indeed elsewhere—that will undoubtedly occur in the coming years. There will be scope for some transatlantic rationalisation and the development of strategic partnerships. The Rolls-Royce acquisition of Allison engines and the British Aerospace collaboration with McDonnell-Douglas are cases in point. In the short term, however, major opportunities lie across European

617
boundaries. The relative scale of US and European companies does not lend itself easily to a partnership of equals.
There is no escaping the fact that United States expenditure on new equipment, spares and ammunition is more than double that of all the European NATO countries, and seven out of the top 10 defence companies in the world are American. If Europe is to meet this challenge, rationalisation of the industrial base across the continent is essential. My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) yesterday referred to this, and I hope to answer some of his questions in what I am about to say.
The House will have heard that the Government believe that it is for industry to make commercial decisions about future markets and industrial partnerships. We do not want the Government to decide industry's future on its behalf. What we can, and should, do is provide the climate and the opportunities in which such linkages can succeed. As I have mentioned, we must recognise and take account of the industrial consequences of the procurement decisions that we make.
Mr. Barry Jones: Have the Minister today—and the Secretary of State yesterday—in effect announced a new policy?
Mr. Arbuthnot: No.
All this means that we must accept an increased level of mutual dependency in meeting procurement needs by agreeing joint requirements. Defence co-operation is no longer just a political option, but an economic necessity. We have many good examples of previous and current co-operative programmes, but we now need to build on these to create structures and processes that offer value for money, while helping rationalisation of the industrial base.
We have made it clear that the adoption of a more commercial approach to future co-operative programmes and their supporting structures is essential. We need to avoid wasteful practices that only serve to distort the market and reduce the economic benefits to be derived. In the past, the obvious benefits of collaboration—increased standardisation, inter-operability, shared development costs, longer production runs and reduced unit costs—have been diluted by working practices contrary to the needs of efficiency and effectiveness.
In future, we should procure from the most efficient supplier—not the one who happens to make up that element of any particular country's work share based on an anticipated level of investment in the project. We cannot subsidise unnecessary duplication of facilities to satisfy purely national, rather than economic, needs. We want taut commercial management, with responsibility for the co-ordination and delivery of the programme to time and cost vested in a single prime contractor. We do not want—we cannot afford—the overhead expenses of large multinational project offices. We need lean organisations, with no international duplication of staffing.
It is against that background that the UK has been contributing positively and constructively to the creation of a European armaments agency that offers the potential for achieving the sort of efficiency improvements and
618
administrative savings that we should all desire. However, we are still some way from its realisation. In answer to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), my remarks today are drawing together some points that have not been drawn together in the same place. It is important that I do that.
We believe that, where nations can agree to common requirements and procurement policies and practices on individual projects—or, indeed, classes of equipment—they should do so. The plans of France and Germany to create a joint armaments framework offer a new channel for a worthwhile and meaningful co-operation in policy and practice. We are working with them—and the Italians—to bring this to fruition.
Some hon. Members may be concerned that, in the creation of a European defence armaments agency, or the quadrilateral armaments structure, there is a move towards protectionism and the establishment of a Fortress Europe mentality. That would be a total misunderstanding of the Government's vision for the new structure. It is not in our interests—political or military—to do that.
This Administration believe passionately in the benefits of open and competitive markets, and strongly value the transatlantic link that has served the security of us all so well during the past decades. The simple fact is that a strong and vibrant European defence industry with expertise in many leading edge technologies is in all our interests.
Our industries must develop quality products that are both affordable and exportable, and which compare favourably with the best in the world. We will not achieve that in an introverted, isolationist European context. We need to take the measure of what the world has to offer, and match or better it. That will generate the domestic and overseas sales essential to the continued well-being of our industries. Our market share of the world's defence markets highlights the need for trading nations to develop openly and competitively.
Dr. Godman: In relation to the safety of crews, has the Ministry any plans to order replacement vessels for the aging ships that service Trident submarines as they enter and leave the Firth of Clyde?
Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I have no plans to announce that during this speech.
Dr. David Clark: The Minister has made some interesting points about the European armaments agency, and I did not disagree with much of what he said. I understand, however, that that body is to hold a critical meeting this Friday, and that the French and the Germans are arguing that any country that signs up to the agency must then place its orders with European countries. Can the Government elucidate the stance that they will adopt at that meeting?
Mr. Arbuthnot: It is difficult to conduct international negotiations across the Floor of this Chamber or in public, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. I would rather not be tempted, if he will forgive me.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The Minister knows that I have taken a considerable interest in this matter with him for a long time. How will the

619
competitiveness of British defence equipment in world markets be enhanced by the activities of the European armaments agency? To whom will the agency be answerable? How will it be funded? Will it not be located in Bonn, not the United Kingdom, which has Europe's premier armaments industry? What are the benefits? Experience with the NATO management agency for the Tornado and with the NATO Euro-fighter management agency shows that what we need is not more bureaucracy but a more commercial approach to procurement.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I was just coming to bureaucracy. The agency about which we are negotiating may well be the catalyst for the sort of rationalisation of industry that I discussed earlier. We in the United Kingdom face defence industries in the United States, and increasingly in south-east Asia, which are getting ever larger. There must therefore be further rationalisation across the borders of Europe and the borders of the rest of the world to gain the benefits of large scale which United States industries already enjoy.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: A moment ago, the Minister mentioned the transatlantic connection and the need for open and competitive markets, both points with which I agreed. Does he agree, though, that the transatlantic link could be further strengthened if British defence manufacturers believed that there was an open and competitive market in the United States?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I totally agree. I have argued in the United States and in this country for a two-way street. I recently wrote an article in which I said that, to some extent, there is a two-way street between the United States and Europe, but that, unfortunately, more traffic flows in one direction than in the other. That is not sustainable in the long term, because all the traffic will end up at the wrong end.
Mr. John Home Robertson: It is not good enough to write articles. How does the Minister intend to deal with the problem of American protectionism? Does he not understand that American companies can make loss-leading bids for procurement contracts with the MOD in ways that can destroy key parts of our defence industrial base; while British and other European companies are not allowed to compete for similar procurements in the United States? The hon. Gentleman cannot just shrug that off as a matter for article writing. It is a point that will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not shrug it off—that is absurd. I talk to industry in the United States; I talk to senators and congressmen, as do my ministerial colleagues. We try to persuade people in the United States. The same applies to European industries: protectionism is not in the interests of United States industry or of European industry. It is a question, rather, of continually persuading those who in the past have argued in favour of protectionism that it will not help them—
Mr. Home Robertson: But it is happening.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Well, we are arguing strongly against it, and we believe that we are beginning to make some
620
headway. The world is a mutually dependent place; it is a shrinking and a changing world too. A Fortress America would be just as damaging as a Fortress Europe.
The United States is a major market for UK and other European defence goods. To stop American products competing to meet our requirements would ultimately be self-defeating for us, but, as I told the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), there must be reciprocity—the two-way street should be just that. Governments must commit themselves to keeping defence markets open and avoiding the damaging but tempting voices of protectionism. It helps no one.
We have proved our credentials in the results of recent competitions, in which we have, in turn, been accused of a lack of concern for the United Kingdom's and Europe's industrial base and of an anti-American Anglo-European preference. Neither is correct.
Mr. Michael Colvin: I accept everything that the Minister and Opposition Members have just been saying, but will he use this opportunity to give credit where it is due?
In the world market for defence products British industry does extremely well, because it is competitive and has a technological edge. Can my hon. Friend confirm that more than half the American orders for defence hardware placed with overseas countries come to this country because of the competitiveness of British industry and the quality of our products? What is more, they come here because of the important north Atlantic alliance. which is underpinned by co-operation between British and American companies.
Mr. Arbuthnot: To someone with the expertise of my hon. Friend, I can only say yes.
The recent Farnborough air show epitomised the healthy competition through excellence that exists in the global defence and aerospace sector; it also showed the United Kingdom's leading role in that sector. I pay tribute to the success of our defence industries in today's highly competitive overseas markets. Exports of defence equipment benefit both the country and the Ministry of Defence. They support about 90,000 UK jobs, and in 1995 they brought home about £5 billion-worth of business—almost 20 per cent. of the world export market.
It is our overall defence export objective to maintain and build on this performance over the next five years. We are well on the way to achieving that in 1996. The MOD benefits directly from the sale of equipment overseas through the payment of commercial exploitation levies, where we have helped to fund development. It also benefits indirectly from the lower unit costs which result from the spreading of overheads.
For these reasons, it is appropriate that we continue to give full and vigorous support to British industry in pursuit of overseas sales prospects. That is a vital ingredient of success. Industry's assessment is that, in recent years, some 70 per cent. of the total value of export sales would not have been achieved without assistance from the Defence Export Services Organisation. We will continue to help British industry to compete for success in this important marketplace.
As well as developing our procurement policies, we have also made enormous strides in improving the organisation for procurement. Our service men and

621
women need to know that, in the Procurement Executive, they have an organisation no less professional and expert than themselves. It is an organisation which, at its new headquarters in Bristol, can realise its full potential. The new Procurement Executive will save about £100 million a year in running costs alone. The organisation has 35 per cent. fewer staff than in 1990, and has halved the number of people in the very top management levels. That very much reflects the reality of "Front Line First", under which savings such as those can be ploughed back into defence expenditure elsewhere—including, for example, back into the front line. It is our aim to ensure that the Procurement Executive remains nothing less than the best defence procurement agency in the world.
Over the past year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined yesterday, we have seen a commitment to providing equipment as efficiently as possible. In February, we announced an order for a further three type 23 frigates from Yarrow, valued at £400 million. In July, we announced the decision to order replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid from GEC Marine, worth about £450 million. In March, the contract was let for the Apache attack helicopter from GKN Westland, representing the most important element of the Army's forward equipment programme and an investment of £2.5 billion. In February, new support vehicles—both utility and battlefield ambulances—were ordered from Land Rover, worth some £200 million.
Recent decisions for the RAF represent one of the largest packages of equipment procurement with the purchase of the Nimrod 2000 from British Aerospace, Storm Shadow from British Aerospace and Matra Marconi, and GEC Marconi's Brimstone, with a total value approaching £4 billion and sustaining around 5000 jobs in the UK. Those decisions will bring jobs and support industry throughout the United Kingdom.
For the future, we look to continuing work on the new batch 2 Trafalgar nuclear-powered submarines and the collaborative common new generation frigate for the Navy; the multi-role armoured utility vehicle for the Army; and the assessment of bids for the future medium—range air-to-air missile-one of the key armaments for the Eurofighter and for the RAF.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend made an important announcement in respect of the Eurofighter at last month's Farnborough Air Show. I wish to repeat that the Government are committed to the production investment, production and support phases of the programme, subject to the satisfactory conclusion of the relevant memoranda of understanding and contractual negotiations. I hope that our German, Italian and Spanish partners will be able to make the same commitment soon. We will be working to avoid any further costly delay in this vital programme.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that the equipment we were providing to our armed services was world class. That is because our armed services deserve no less. They are widely respected, and I would go so far as to say they may be the most professional armed services in the world.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Arbuthnot: No, I am winding up.
622
Look at the job our armed services do. They save lives worldwide with sensitivity and courage, they protect the nation at home and our interests abroad. In that job they represent the people of this country, and they are identified with every man, woman and child. That is why we are so proud of what they do, that is why our armed services have the full commitment and support of this country, and that is why, under a Conservative Government, we will continue to give them the support and commitment they need and deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a limit of 10 minutes on all Back-Bench speeches between 7.30 and 9 pm.
5.22 pm
Dr. John Reid: I thank the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, and heir presumptive to the baronetcy, for his contribution. It is my pleasurable duty, in view of his announcement, to extend the congratulations of the Opposition and, I am sure, of the whole House to Sir Charles Guthrie on the announcement today of his appointment as the next Chief of the Defence Staff from April next year. That news will be warmly welcomed because Sir Charles Guthrie has served his country well through the Welsh Guards, the British Army on the Rhine, Aden, Special Forces and 22 SAS. I am sure his best years of service are ahead of him, to the benefit of the British armed forces and of this country. I notice from his "Who's Who" entry that he is also a member of the Beefsteak club—I did not know that before today—which presumably means that his appointment had the full support of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. We look forward to that appointment next year. April and May will be an interesting two months—new Labour, new Government, new Chief of the Defence Staff.
On a sadder note, I also wish, on behalf of the Opposition, to express my personal regrets and condolences to the family of Warrant Officer James Bradwell, who died in Northern Ireland. He was the first service man to die there for two years and the first since the ceasefire ended, but we should not forget that he was the 653rd British service man to die for the cause of his country and of peace in that unhappy Province. When we pay our condolences at his death, we give testimony also, symbolically, to the other men and women in our armed services who have served their country and sacrificed themselves on land, on the seas and in the air.
On land in Bosnia, British troops are foremost among the United Nations troops; they have managed to preserve at least a semblance of civilisation, not to mention hundreds of thousands of lives in that war-torn country. On the sea, the Royal Navy serves not only in the Adriatic off Bosnia but in the Gulf, with the Armilla patrol and in its activities against drugs, in which it stands silent sentinel to the values of civilisation.
In our preoccupation with Bosnia, we should not forget what a powder keg the Gulf is. Saddam Hussein—as the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned, correctly, yesterday—will use every opportunity to tease and to

623
probe the defences and the will of the United Nations and the west. The fact that there are some 30,000 United States troops, some 200-plus combat aircraft, 25 surface ships and two aircraft carriers in the Gulf is numerical testimony to the dangers that lurk there.
We also pay tribute to the constant patrolling by the Royal Air Force in the United Nations designated areas over Iraq and in Bosnia. We have, of course, supported the Government in almost every operational decision that they have taken over the past decade, not because it was expedient to do so but because it has been right. We supported the United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR, when it went into Bosnia, despite the fact that we—together with Back Benchers on both sides of the House and some Ministers—occasionally despaired about the lack of clarity in the objectives and guidelines.
Thankfully, that lack was remedied to some extent with the implementation force and we have made plain our support for the follow-on force, in principle, should it happen. Of course, we wish to see all our major allies involved on the ground and in other areas, but we will give support to British participation under United Nations auspices and as part of NATO.
I wish to add one note of caution. The tasks that have been completed so far in Bosnia, complicated though they were, have been relatively easy, in terms of definition and implementation, for a military force. The tasks have involved separation of forces, patrolling borders in Bosnia, and so on. When the winter snows melt in Bosnia and we reach the next stage for the follow-on force, it will be more difficult to clarify the roles of that military force, because it will have to cope with the return of refugees and, perhaps, social unrest. We must be clear to avoid the mistakes that were made a few years ago, and we must not allow the military to be sucked into what are essentially civilian policing operations. Nevertheless, with that qualification, we pay testimony to our troops.
In these two days of debate, we must be clear that, whatever criticisms are levelled, it is not our service men and women who are on trial but their political masters. Here they are, arrayed in front of us and all together for once in a defence debate—the top brass of the political world in Britain.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who I hope can manage to avoid hot flushes today when criticisms are levied, is fresh from his television spectacular. I hope that everyone saw those 58 minutes on television. The programme, "The Top Brass", was an amazing success—an amazing risk.
I enjoyed the 56 minutes of the programme that were devoted to the life and times of Sir Nicholas Soames. I am glad that the Secretary of State was allowed a walk-on part—or was it simply his picture in the background on the walls of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces?
Having been somewhat eclipsed on the television arena, the Secretary of State had to find himself another stage. Last week, there was one by the seaside. We all saw that week-long, bizarre spectacle.
Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: Yes, I shall certainly give way to the working-class hero on the Conservative Benches.
Mr. Gallie: It is all very well to joke about the activities of Conservative Members, but the
624
hon. Gentleman made a serious point a few minutes ago. He suggested that if widespread catastrophe occurred in Bosnia—with perhaps people dying all over the place—the armed forces would step back. That would be against the wishes of my constituents who have written to me in great numbers on that issue and on Rwanda. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he said?
Dr. Reid: Yes. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was saying exactly the opposite. Where military tasks are involved, it is appropriate that the British armed forces should be present, and it would have the support of the whole House. But if increasingly the task is to solve disputes between neighbours about who is entitled to go to what house as the refugees return, which is clearly a civilian policing task, we must make it clear that the objectives, rules of engagement, aims and use of the armed forces are limited to tasks that are compatible with their experience and within the practical possibilities of military implementation.
The armed forces must not become a secondary substitute for civilian police forces, especially as we shall have at least four indigenous police forces in the three areas, plus the central police force. My comment was not meant as a criticism of our armed forces. It is a worry that Ministers will have and will be keen to avoid.
May I return to what I was saying about the Secretary of State? At last week's conference, he intelligently discussed almost everything except defence. That was in keeping with the bizarre nature of the conference. I do not know what the message was. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the highlight of the conference for the first two days. We were constantly told that he did not have an enemy in the world. He has no compulsion to find enemies as he seems to be hated by all his friends, so he does not need one.
The Prime Minister again tried to send out a message of leadership on defence, as on everything else. If I were a prime ministerial adviser, I would despair. Nice man though he may be, he seems to find it impossible to summon from within himself the directional leadership that this country desperately needs. I often think that, had the Prime Minister been leading the Israelites out of the desert, he would have returned down Mount Sinai with the ten suggestions rather than the ten commandments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are supposed to be debating the defence estimates.
Dr. Reid: We are indeed, and the essence of any defence force is command, control and leadership. I was pointing out that, from the top, that has been lacking for the country as well as for the armed forces.
The man in charge of defence, the Secretary of State, has come hotfoot from his production on the Bournemouth stage of the adaptation of Cromwell's "Put your trust in John, but keep your powder dry". Last year on the stage, he called in aid the SAS and the special forces; this year we had the adoption of Fabian tactics, which was to keep the powder dry until after the next election.
We are not sitting in judgment on our armed forces; we are not even sitting in judgment on what the Tory party did on defence at Bournemouth. We are sitting in judgment on the two Tory parties represented in front of

625
us. To use military acronyms, we have the OTT and the NTS—the old Tory toffs and the new Tory spivs. A deal has been concocted between them on defence, as on other issues, to try to cover up that division.
Over the past two days, we have talked of trying to build a consensus on defence. No one should think that a consensus on defence means that we do not criticise each other or that we agree on everything. It means that we agree on a framework to lift national security above party interests and the interests of factions inside parties, which is precisely why I made the point about the division within the Conservative party. I shall outline the areas on which we agree before discussing the areas on which we have massive differences.
Dr. Robert Spink: If the hon. Gentleman is interested in rising above party politics, will he congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his excellent and statesmanlike speech at Bournemouth? Will he join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the 9,000 British troops with IFOR in Bosnia, who have delivered on disarming and separating the forces and on a successful election in September?
Dr. Reid: All right, just for the sake of consensus, I do so on both counts.
There are matters on which the House can agree, some of which have been mentioned already. They include the rationalisation of our reserve forces, which has been undertaken by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He consulted widely beforehand, gave some thought to the detail and listened to criticism from ourselves and others. On that basis, we gave the legislation a fair wind.
Again, this year's aims and objectives of the Ministry of Defence, as outlined in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996", includes the obligation
"To provide the strategic direction on behalf of Her Majesty's Government".
All I can say to that is hooray, but we should not have had to wait 17 years to find that strategic direction is one of the objectives of the Ministry of Defence. It should have been an objective at the start of the Tory Government, not in their dying months.
Progress has also been made on joint operations. It makes sense to have joint training of helicopter pilots from all three services. The establishment of a joint permanent headquarters is a significant advance in operational capability, and I am grateful for the access and briefings that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave me on that matter. But even where both sides of the House have agreed on those trends, the Government have found it impossible to avoid the incompetence that has marked so many of their ventures.
A number of the ventures relate to their approach to joint service activities—for example, the tragic and shambolic plans for the joint staff college, which seems to be in a constant state of flux. The sell-off of the Greenwich naval college was decided on the basis of figures which, on investigation, the Defence Select Committee subsequently found to be inadequate and incomplete. The Secretary of State was forced to do a U-turn on his plans for the unfettered right to sell off the college willy-nilly to whomever he chose.
626
We then found that the plans to site the joint college at the Army college at Camberley were delayed by a lack of suitable accommodation. Temporary resiting to the air staff college at Bracknell was then accompanied by an announcement that private funding would be sought not only for the extra accommodation needed but for the whole staff college project. With the best will in the world, and trying to be as non-partisan as possible, I believe that, if we manage to reach a general agreement on consensus, it will be difficult to sustain it, given such shambolic incompetence in what should be a relatively simple decision.
On the subject of the joint rapid deployment force, we welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement 18 months ago. We welcomed his reannouncement of it three months later and we welcomed his third announcement. At the time, I said that the only rapid things about the force were the rate and consistency with which it was being reannounced.
As soon as the force was set up in August, the Secretary of State made yet another announcement. A press report stated that Britain's elite rapid deployment force was to lose an entire battalion of paras just three weeks after its launch because of huge overstretch. The rapid deployment force, which was not formed too rapidly, then had no one to deploy. In the face of such incompetence, we have difficulty maintaining cross-party consensus on essentially good ideas.
We have complained that, even when the parties agree on issues, the Ministry of Defence must be constantly goaded or prompted into action which must ultimately be taken and from which it could derive some credit if it did so without being badgered. Hon. Members have mentioned some examples. The MOD was goaded constantly to respond adequately on the issue of Gulf war syndrome. I do not question Ministers' sincerity on that issue: they are in a difficult position, as they must be judges regarding what happened, prosecutors when seeking evidence about what might have occurred, and then defendants, as ultimately they will be liable if it is found that something went wrong.
Nevertheless, Ministers should have realised earlier that important issues regarding our obligation and our loyalty to service men and women will not go away. If we find that there was negligence initially or subsequent negligence in investigating the matter, leading to accusations of a cover-up, Ministers must take the strongest possible action.
The MOD was prompted to take action about the treatment of our service men and it has been pushed to adopt a rational view regarding service women. I do not know exactly how much we have paid out to pregnant service women, but it is more than £50 million. If the MOD had listened to those who warned of a problem, we would have been spared the indignity of treating women in that fashion and saved £50 million in hard-earned Treasury money, which could have been spent on much-needed equipment.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman's argument would carry more weight if he did not speak for a party that is committed to adopting the

627
social chapter, which we opted out of in the Maastricht treaty. It would impose more rules and regulations across all sectors of British life.
Dr. Reid: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I wish that he were sure of his facts. The social chapter specifically excludes the armed forces and therefore is not relevant to my point about pregnant service men and women. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am trying to be politically correct—as my party knows, I have a long history of political correctness.
The matter of the Commission for Racial Equality was raised yesterday. No one suggests that the ministerial offices of the Crown are filled with racists, but there is something wrong when the Commission for Racial Equality must threaten to drag the Ministry of Defence through the courts to force it to implement plans with which the MOD says that it agrees. Despite the comments of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the truth is that the MOD was over a barrel due to its tardiness in making advances on the question of recruitment from ethnic minorities. It was an abject surrender. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) described the MOD's backdown to the CRE as the first unconditional surrender by British forces since Yorktown.
Despite that, we have much to be proud of. As the Minister said, we are blessed with the quality of our service men and women and, similarly, of those involved in our manufacturing industry. Two weeks ago, I was privileged to visit the Royal Armoured Corps with Sir Charles Guthrie to view Challenger 2. It is a marvellous example of British engineering which is manned by skilled, highly trained crews from the Royal Armoured Corps. I will not go so far as to say that it floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee but, for something that size, it is an impressive example of British engineering and martial skill.
Our manufacturing record is, however, continually marred by the Government's apparent incapacity to produce the goods on time and at cost. I do not blame the MOD entirely, but several weeks ago I was interested to read one of its press releases about the Phoenix spy plane. Hon. Members probably know that the plane is extremely effective but seldom comes back in one piece—which somewhat limits its operational usefulness. It is like a boomerang that goes only one way. The press release stated:
"We now have confidence in the cost-effectiveness, tactical performance and reliability of the system to meet the army's requirements".
The plane is now expected to be in service by 1998, which is great—except that it was due in service in 1989. The MOD is proudly boasting that equipment which is seven or eight years overdue will be delivered in three or four years.
We do not blame the Government for every delay. However, any objective observer who examined the pattern of consistent delays would conclude that it was the only area where the Government appeared to have a strategy. I am reminded that Napoleon once instructed Bourrienne not to open his letters for three weeks and, after that time, expressed satisfaction that most of the correspondence had resolved itself. I have a feeling that the Secretary of State is adopting a Napoleonic strategy to defence procurement: if we delay indefinitely, the need will go away. But it will not.
628
Similarly, we do not blame the Government for every cost overrun—we know that there are technical difficulties and updated requirements. However, at the end of the day, we seem to spend much more on almost every project—except Trident, of course. The Minister spoke about that at great length today. I do not know whether he is good with figures. I know that he is a Chancery lawyer—I discovered that before he came into the Chamber. I do not know what that is—perhaps it is someone who defends chancers, which would explain why he is at the Ministry of Defence. The Minister is certainly not good with Roman numerals, since he spoke to me recently about our proud role in winning world war eleven.
I think that the cost overruns are due to something in the system rather than to the personal inadequacies of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. At least tonight we can welcome the fact that he referred to the system of procurement. He mentioned data information systems and the need to bring the three services together. That is a great idea. However, by chance I met a man on a train who worked in that area and he told me that the three computer systems were incompatible. I pass on that information from someone at the coal face; I do not know whether it is accurate.
We agree on many issues. There is no major difference in our views on NATO: it is the cornerstone of our policy. We believe in developing the Western European Union and that it should not be part of the European Union.
Dr. Spink: What will the hon. Gentleman agree with next week?
Dr. Reid: Anything that the Conservatives say that makes sense. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to belong to a party that has a knee-jerk reaction of saying black every time someone says white, he is entitled to do so. I want to belong to a party that is capable of analysing the real world and of reaching rational conclusions and that is prepared to agree with anyone who has reached the same conclusions on the basis of the same analysis. I am not ashamed of that; we have operated in that way for some considerable time. We support "Partnership for Peace", the domestic joint service operation and the combined operations with our allies abroad, all of which should be the basis for common agreement.
There are, however, two major obstacles to the development in Britain of a consensual framework on defence. The first is the fact that the Government refuse to have a real review of the pattern of overstretch, which has placed an intolerable burden on ordinary service men and women. Not only is the situation not improving, despite constant promises, but it is getting much worse. Ministers speak as though the problem had been revealed to them suddenly from on high. I have only one simple point to make: if the demographic curve shows that the market for people joining the armed forces—people aged between 18 and 24—has plummeted, it may come as a surprise to the Government, but it was predictable about 18 to 24 years ago.
Anyone could have read the runes of the coming drop in demography. We warned six years ago from the Opposition Front Bench that there would be just such a shortage of recruits. As all hon. Members know, we are now 4,000 short of the establishment figures even for forces that would be overstretched had they attained those figures.

629
Overstretch is not just a matter of a fall in the demographic curves. It reveals astonishing complacency and incompetence by successive Ministers. Recruitment has been constantly undermined by the closure and reopening of Army recruitment centres, the closure and reinstatement of regiments and the MOD's constant chopping about and incapacity for forward planning. Over the past 10 years, Ministers have introduced the concept of stop-go planning into the Ministry of Defence. That is the first problem we have in developing a consensus, and it is one of the reasons—not the only one—why we insist on a real strategic security review and why we will carry that out in government.
The Government have failed in a second crucial area: by imposing their ideology of privatisation and contractorisation as a dogma on the services, they have undermined organisations bound together by the ethos of collective cohesion. Group loyalty may mean nothing to the unfettered free marketeers; it means everything to those whose lives depend on it. It does not show up on a profit and loss account or feature in an accountant's log, but the ethos of the military group is still a vital, permeating, irreplaceable asset for the operational effectiveness of our forces.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): May I clarify one point for the hon. Gentleman before he goes any further? We do not regard the Government as having any consensus with the Labour party on any single defence issue. Will he give one example of a reform of the type which he is talking about that has undermined the cohesion of the armed forces, bearing in mind that, in my view, the new management strategy, for example, has been the greatest single liberating measure ever achieved to allow the services to run their own affairs?
Dr. Reid: I will answer both points directly. The Minister rejects any attempt to make national security a matter of national consensus, above party politics. Most people in this country, including those in the armed services, are sick and tired of the yah-boo politics conducted in the House over national security. People are desperate for politicians of all parties to put aside their petty partisan differences when it comes to our national security and to put country above party. They will have noticed that any attempt by us—no matter how constructive—to build such a consensus, is rejected.
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he will not be in a position to offer consensus or otherwise; the governing party next year will offer that consensus, and that will be the Labour party.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: When I have answered the Minister's second question. The hon. Gentleman would not like me to be discourteous, and the answer will be of interest also to him.
The Minister asked me for an example of contractorisation undermining the cohesion and effectiveness of the armed forces. The contractorisation process for the maintenance of RAF aircraft is such an
630
example. It was put out to tender and won by a private company—I spoke to RAF mechanics who were bitterly disappointed about that. The private company undercut the RAF, which was allowed to tender in that particular station, but was told that, even if it won, it would have to keep to the establishment numbers agreed in "Options for Change" and defence cuts studies—in other words, even if the RAF won the tender, it would still have to lose it.
The RAF can be undercut by a private company that can make a low tender because it does not have to train mechanics or pay them the wages of the RAF. It does not have to do that because it recruits RAF-trained service men who have been made redundant and are on a pension from the MOD, so the same people do the maintenance on Royal Air Force aeroplanes for a private company. Five years down the road, there will be no RAF-trained mechanics on the base, because the RAF lost the tender, but nor will there be trained mechanics in the private company, because it put in a low tender.
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
Dr. Reid: The Minister says that I do not know what I am talking about, but I am telling him what I was told by the people involved. We shall find out who is right when we have to pick up the pieces after the shambles created by the dogmatic imposition of free market values on a service that believes in collective loyalty and group cohesion. If Ministers do not understand the importance of that to the armed forces, they do not understand anything.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman has been his engaging and entertaining self. He speaks about consensus and about group cohesion and refers to a prospective Government, whose members I presume he imagines lurk on the Opposition Benches, but what about the amendment that stands in the names of his hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway? That is, manifestly, totally distinct from his policy and that of his Front-Bench colleagues. If he cannot achieve consensus even within his own party on fundamental security issues, how does he hope do it in government?
Dr. Reid: On the last point, the hon. Gentleman, who is an intelligent man, is sufficiently semantically aware to know that there is a difference between consensus and unanimity. [Laughter.] The cynics laugh. I read somewhere that cynicism is the crutch that intellectual cripples sometimes have to lean on as a substitute for intelligence.
I do indeed seek consensus. Is that consensus to be built around the position proposed by a small number of my hon. Friends tonight? No. Do I reject their views? Yes. Have I anything in common with the main thrust of their views on defence as expressed in the amendment? No. Is their view in accord with the Labour party conference decision? No. It is totally in opposition to the views of the Labour party conference, the parliamentary Labour party and the party leadership. I cannot be any plainer.
On contractorisation, I merely say one thing, because I cannot put it better than Basil Liddell Hart put it some 50 years ago when he wrote:
"living in an atmosphere of soldierly duty and esprit de corps permeates the soul. whereas drill merely attunes the muscles."

631
Basil Liddell Hart got it right. It would be to everyone's benefit if the Secretary of State for Defence paid a little more attention to Basil Liddell Hart than to Mr. David Hart when taking decisions inside the MOD.
Another obstacle to consensus is the Government's response to entreaties—[Interruption.] The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is shouting—I think he said "Insane!"—from a sedentary position. He will get his chance to put his case later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but he has already made it plain: not only will he not seek agreement in the House on anything, but he will reject it outright from the beginning when it is offered.
It is relatively easy to identify the challenges that face the armed forces in this country. We know that the type of threat has changed. We know the problems that are occurring in the developments in Russia. We know about changes in the military architectural structure. All those things are talked about constantly. There are, however, one or more deep social changes that no one has yet faced up to, but future Governments will have to face up to them, because although they are not the most obvious changes, they are profound in terms of their effect on the armed forces of this country. They are changes in society. I shall outline three of them, because as far as I am aware they have not been mentioned.
The first is perhaps the most obvious: the general perception widely held by the public that the threat has gone. I agree entirely with what the Secretary of State said at length yesterday. The threats have not gone. In many ways, there are more threats now than before. War is not cost-free, despite the experience of Bosnia. Whatever we say in the House, the general perception among the public is that the threat has gone. One reason for the successive cuts in defence budgets over the past 10 years is the fact that, when the Cabinet has to decide how money will be allocated, it reflects what the public feel, and the general impression is that the public do not feel that defence should be a recipient of large amounts of money, because they do not perceive that there is a threat. Therefore, all of us who do perceive it have a duty to join together whenever we can to combat complacency among the public. That is the first great social change to which we must attend.
The second change is in the personal experience of most people in this country. I give one fact to the House. In the 20 years to 1964, 6.5 million British people had been through the armed forces. Some 30 years ago, 20 million families had personal experience of, links with or empathy with the armed forces. In the 20 years to 1994, the figure was only 500,000. In 20 years' time, it will be around 300,000. In other words, contrasting 30 years back and 30 years forward, for every 100 people who have experience or empathy with the armed forces, there will be only three. That is the second great change that we cannot ignore. If we do, we do so at our peril.
The third change is in cultural attitudes in society: the growth throughout the 1980s of unfettered individualism—Thatcherism at its worst. There has been some discussion of what benefits we may have gained from Thatcherism. We could discuss that all night. We certainly gained one huge social deficit as well: the idea that the individual should enrich him or herself irrespective of what happened in the rest of the population, the idea that the biblical merit of the good samaritan lay not in good deeds but in the fact that he was
632
rich—a sort of biblical yuppie. There was the idea that one had no obligation to anyone else, because "society" did not exist.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Disgraceful!
Dr. Reid: I am using the words of the Secretary of State's mentor. It is no good him telling us that it is disgraceful. He was standing behind her, cheering, when she was telling us that, for 10 years.
Not only is that completely at odds with the ethos of our armed services: it is a destructive worm at the heart of our social and cultural attitudes in Britain. Thank God people are moving back from it.
Taken together, those three changes mean that, in terms of personal experience, empathy and cultural attitude, the gap is growing between the value system of the population in general and the ethos and life style of the armed forces in particular. How do we begin to face those challenges? Every hon. Member who has the armed forces at heart knows that they are challenges.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has made one or two very good points, but I do not agree with his third challenge. As he will know, I served in the armed forces in the late 1980s. He mentioned the tremendous selfishness of the 1980s. I was commanding some of what are termed "Thatcher's children", and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those young men were just as good as young men had been 10 or 15 years before. They were excellent. They were honourable, loyal and, decent, and they looked after other people. They responded to all the things that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, so he must agree that his third challenge is a load of bunkum.
Dr. Reid: Far from contradicting me, the hon. Gentleman reinforces everything that I said. I said that unfettered individualism existed outside the armed forces. People who joined the armed forces out of a sense of public service, who rejected the denigration of the idea of public service, who believed that the individual should make sacrifices for the group, who rejected Thatcherite values, were the very people who joined the British armed forces, and they are still there. Those values are deep inside the British armed forces, and we must ensure that we help to build a bridge between civilian attitudes and those of the armed forces.
There are two ways to do that: the first is to have a vision for Britain's role in the world, in which our armed forces play a significant part. I believe that the Labour party can create such a vision. We believe that, at home, individuals have responsibilities to their neighbours. We believe that that is the same abroad. We believe therefore that we have not only rights on the international stage but responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to create a world order out of the chaos, and the British armed forces throughout their history are uniquely placed to contribute to that role.
The second is to start to restore a trend, which is already moving in the direction of the beliefs that we hold, in the culture and attitudes of people in this country outside the armed forces; to raise again the idea of public service as a public good rather than as some left-wing

633
Utopian wishy-washy social work idea; to say again that public service is good for the country, not only inside the armed forces but outside; to talk of social responsibility as well as social rights; to raise again trust, honour and integrity as obligations that we owe to each other in society.
All those elements have survived in the armed forces, and they should—and, I hope, will—be encouraged outside. It is time to restore the elevation of public service and social responsibility as well as individual rights outside. The time has come to restore pride in our armed forces and our country. Neither the current Secretary of State nor the Conservative Government are capable of doing that, but within a year there will be a Government who will, because the Labour Government will make that a key priority.
6.8 pm
Mr. Winston Churchill: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—who speaks on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, and long may he continue to do so—but I do not know where he has been in terms of visiting Her Majesty's forces if he thinks that they lack a sense of pride and purpose. I defy anyone who has visited the British Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in their different deployments worldwide to come away with such a misguided opinion. It is just baloney, and the hon. Gentleman should know better.
The hon. Gentleman has done his best to be consensual today and he assures us that if, by mischance, the Labour party wins the next general election, there will be a consensus within his party.
Dr. Reid: I will seek a consensus.
Mr. Churchill: The hon. Gentleman now qualifies that by saying that he will seek a consensus within his party. He will have an uphill struggle because on the matter of defence, and above all on nuclear defence, his party is split from top to bottom, no matter how hard the Leader of the Opposition may try to paper over the chasm.
I warmly welcome the announcement of the appointment of General Sir Charles Guthrie as Chief of Defence Staff. He is a first-class soldier, and I have no doubt at all that his will be an excellent appointment. I also pay tribute to our armed forces whom, as a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I have the privilege of visiting at so many locations in so many of their roles world wide. One thinks especially at present of our forces serving in Northern Ireland and those in Bosnia where, together with our allies, they are holding the ring and bringing back some semblance of normality and peace to that strife-torn land.
It is a regrettable fact that, one year in every four, our great ally across the seas, the United States, takes leave of its senses and indulges in an unashamed 12 months of electioneering. It becomes quite impossible to get any coherent response, let alone leadership, out of the United States during an election year. In the case of Bosnia, that risks being all too tragic, because the President has committed himself publicly to the withdrawal of US forces from IFOR in the former Yugoslavia before the year is out.
634
Were that to happen—I very much hope that it will not, and that the matter will be reconsidered as a matter of urgency—it would pull the rug from under the allies who are doing so much to bring peace back to Bosnia. It would make vain all the efforts that the international community, and not least our armed forces, have made during the past four years to try to bring Bosnia back from the brink.
It is essential that a successor to IFOR, with US participation, should go forward and that that should be announced at the earliest possible moment. It may be on a reduced level. That is not important. What is important is that the United States is there and that it forms part of the alliance engaged on the ground in Bosnia. However much, as Europeans, we may regret it, it was the adherence, involvement and commitment of the United States in IFOR, which was so conspicuously absent in UNPROFOR, that completely changed the perception of the local warring factions towards the international community trying to bring them back from the brink.
I am conscious that time is limited and I will confine myself to just a couple of further topics. As has already been said, our armed forces are unquestionably the finest in the world. But without the proper equipment, even the finest cannot give of their best. No single item of equipment which is due to enter service in the immediate future is more important than the European fighter aircraft. It is not only an important exercise in defence co-operation within Europe, but it is at the heart of the future capability of the Royal Air Force.
We now hear ugly rumours that Germany is minded to wreck co-operation in that area by drastically stretching out the time scale of procurement for EFA in order, we are told, to enable Germany to meet the criteria for joining a single European currency to which Chancellor Kohl has committed himself, despite the fact that it is likely to cause a drastic split within the European unity so painfully built up over the past 40 years.
As was perceptively observed by the late Julian Amery—a former Member for Preston and for Brighton. Pavilion, whose loss we keenly mourn—France seeks to appease Germany in its every move and sits like a mahout atop the ears of the German elephant, vainly and ineffectually seeking to steer the elephant in the direction that France wishes it to go. That is not happening, however, and it is most regrettable that, unlike the British Government, our German allies should not take on board the importance of co-operation in this vital area of European defence. By their actions, they threaten to wreck the fledgling co-operation that has been developed in recent years in that area. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, as well as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will bring home to the German Government just how important we regard that particular joint venture.
On more than one occasion in the past, I have been minded to criticise my party's Government for not doing enough on defence. As the election approaches, however, there can be no question but that the greatest threat to the effectiveness and capability of Britain's armed forces comes from new Labour. Its proposal for a comprehensive review of defence may sound reasonable enough to the uninitiated, but every time there is a defence review it is the Treasury that wins and the armed services are forced to beat an undignified retreat. In Labour hands, a defence review can only mean massive defence cuts.

635
In the six years up to 1994, the Labour party conference voted to reduce Britain's defence expenditure to the European average. That represents a cut of £4.5 billion—equivalent to the abolition of the Royal Navy. That cut, combined with Labour's antipathy to defence sales to many foreign countries, could threaten vast numbers of the 400,000 defence-related jobs in Britain. Only last year, the Transport and General Workers Union—which I believe sponsors the leader of the Labour party—proposed at its conference to slash defence expenditure by no less than £18 billion. What the Labour party could do with the remaining £4 billion in terms of national defence, let alone co-operation with our allies, I just cannot fathom, but new Labour is split from top to bottom on the defence issue.
We are assured that new Labour is different from old Labour, but who are new Labour? Eighteen of the 24 members of the shadow Cabinet in the Commons were opposed, at various times, to Britain's independent nuclear deterrent. At the height of the cold war, nine of those 18 called for Britain's withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and for the expulsion of American forces from their British bases. Theirs is a party divided on the essentials of defence. It is divided on Trident, on Britain's independent nuclear capability and on maintaining a strong and effective defence posture. What faith can the armed forces, let alone our allies, have in such a motley, inexperienced and divided crew?
6.20 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I will not follow the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) down that line. I will merely say, "Old Tories, old misrepresentations".
Mine will be a short speech which I believe will be greeted with enthusiasm by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I want to bring constituency problems to the attention of the House and especially the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
During the autumn, I attended various ceremonies on the closure of RAF Carlisle. Some fine tributes have been paid to the base's work in the past 58 years and I wish to add mine tonight. I still argue that it was wrong to close the base, but the decision has been taken and the base will cease to be operational by the end of the year.
In the RAF debate in June, I brought two problems appertaining to the base to the Minister's attention, and I am glad to say that he was accommodating on both of them. One was the plan to store bonemeal from culled cows at the base, which was adding insult to injury. The other was that the Ministry of Defence had reneged on its decision to go into partnership to develop the base. Since then, however, through the Minister's good offices, there has been a policy change and we are getting along with the base's development.
There are still, however, two contentious issues. One is of a material kind and affects the base's future. The second is symbolic. It needs to be brought to the Minister's attention so that he can perhaps change his mind.
The first is on the former RAF base's development. We are fortunate that many companies are interested in purchasing or leasing sites on the base. We need to put the infrastructure in place. Everything was going reasonably well. We made a Konver bid and we scored high on the points system. We were told unofficially that
636
it was likely that we would receive £1.1 million to develop the infrastructure, as would the scheme in Chorley. That amount was not exactly what we needed, but it was satisfactory.
Since then, due to objections from authorities that were not considered, I understand that it is all back in the melting pot. I should be grateful if the Minister could use his good offices to reconsider the position. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry is the lead Department on the issue, but the Ministry of Defence clearly has an important part to play.
Mr. Soames: I do not have that information here tonight, but in the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will look into the matter tomorrow and have a reply for him on the Members' letter board within 48 hours.
Mr. Martlew: I was hoping that the Minister would say that. I remember him being courteous to me on many occasions—or I think I remember.
The other problem is one in which the Minister has direct authority, and I hope that he will be as considerate on this one. It concerns the gate guardian at RAF Carlisle. As hon. Members will be aware, most RAF bases have a redundant military aircraft outside the base. RAF Carlisle had a McDonnell Douglas Phantom, which was appropriate because RAF Carlisle was a maintenance unit that kept all the American spares.
The local aviation museum, which is based at Carlisle airport nine miles away, made a request either to purchase the Phantom or to have it on permanent loan, and I wrote to the Minister asking whether that was possible. The answer was that, because it was an American aircraft and the American Government maintained the disposal rights of any redundant aircraft, it would not be possible without the Americans' permission.
I wrote to the American embassy in London, which assured me that it would probably consider the transfer favourably if the Government went through the correct channels and asked the embassy for the transfer. I wrote to the Minister, who said that the transfer was not possible, that it would cost too much money and that that was not the way forward. He regretted the decision and acknowledged that the base's 58 years of service to the nation was an outstanding achievement, but he still would not take that decision.
I cannot understand that attitude, because, nine miles away, there is RAF Spadeadam. Anyone who knows the history of the British ballistic missile or the British space probe will remember that the Blue Streak rocket was tested at Spadeadam. It is now a base for electronic warfare, but it is an RAF base. It could easily keep an eye on the Phantom—not that anyone is going to steal it—and there would not be any expense.
I understand that the gate guardian is to be transferred to RAF Sealand, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I wish RAF Sealand all the best and I am sure that it is a good base, but I regret that our gate guardian is being sent there. First, it is an insensitive decision, because, five years ago, RAF Carlisle lost more than 100 avionic jobs to RAF Sealand. Secondly, like all other bases, RAF Sealand already has a gate guardian—I believe that it is a Hunter fighter—so it does not need an extra one. The expense of

637
taking the plane, which will have to go by road, from RAF Carlisle to RAF Sealand will be far more than keeping an eye on it at the Solway aviation museum.
The Minister has already been obliging on one occasion. There is a symbolism here that he cannot brush aside. It is important for the future that he decides that the Phantom will stay in Carlisle, that it will be looked after by RAF Spadeadam and that, over the years, we in the region will be able to look at that plane with pride to remind us of the 58 years of fine service that RAF Carlisle gave to the nation.
6.28 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I echo the closing part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's speech yesterday, in which he rightly said that there is a serious danger that Bosnia could teach us the wrong lessons. He said that, as recently as 1991, we found ourselves facing, wholly expectedly, a high-intensity war in which we had remarkably light casualties, but which involved an enemy with large quantities of highly capable equipment.
I was talking that morning to a gentleman—whose name I shall not mention because he has no opportunity to reply, but who is a well respected commentator on diplomatic and military affairs—who told me that the Government had got it all wrong and that the solution to squaring the circle on military budgets was to stop "refighting the cold war", to stop buying highly expensive equipment such as the European fighter aircraft, which he was convinced we would never use, and instead to focus more heavily on the sort of equipment that would be most useful for Bosnia and other peacekeeping operations. He mentioned the shortage of suitably adaptable light armoured vehicles.
In the last century, after we had defeated Napoleon, there was a strong feeling that the armed forces had a variety of roles, including exploring the world and policing our incipient empire, but that fighting a high-intensity war of the era would not again be necessary. Frankly, we had a pretty rough time of it in the Crimea, but that was relatively small compared with the shock that we got in 1914 when we had an army that was designed only as a back-up for a colonial police operation. It was an army of brave, disciplined people, but with none of the modern equipment of its enemy. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the Admiralty and the Navy estimates had been treated in the way in which the War Office and the Army estimates had been treated by the House for a generation, we would have been in serious danger of losing the first world war, perhaps fairly early on.
The truth is that armed forces do not exist to deal with the here and now: that is not their principal purpose. However important the situation in Bosnia, however anxious we may be to contribute to the crisis in Rwanda, however urgent the various demands on our military manpower in peacetime, the prime purpose of the armed forces is to deal with the crisis that arises only once in a generation—it may not arise for 50 or 60 years—when there is a threat to the continued existence of the nation.
There is a nasty whiff of history about the events taking place in the ex-Soviet states. Twice in the past 200 years the largest power in Europe has imploded economically
638
and politically, its armed forces have felt humiliated and the price of bread on the streets has risen. One was post-revolutionary France; the other was Weimar Germany. [Interruption.] I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, as he obviously wants to say something—no, he does not.
I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comment that the prime requirement is to maintain a capability to participate in and deter a high-intensity war. When we look at what has happened in the ex-Soviet states and at the situation in Russia, whose leader is on his sickbed, we should worry about the potential for things to go badly wrong. On a visit to Russia last year, I met the leader of the communist party in that region, who came to power there a few weeks after my visit. I am afraid that our visit to provide political advice to his democratic opponents was a complete failure. He was a most impressive guy. The last words he said to me as I left that meeting were, "Mr. Brazier, you must not imagine that you, in the west, can disassociate yourself from what is unfolding in this country. Just remember the panic you had in the west because one nuclear power complex in Ukraine went critical 10 years ago. Think of the scope for things to go wrong in a country with 40,000 nuclear weapons." Neither post-revolutionary France nor Weimar Germany had nuclear weapons.
The serious problems that could threaten our vital national interests are not just the other side of what used to be the iron curtain. There is a dangerous stand-off between Israel and the Palestinian people, which could destabilise that end of the Mediterranean. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein—a man who is sitting almost on top of the bulk of the world's oil supplies—is once again throwing his weight about. Iran is developing a nuclear programme. Indeed, the Iranians largely financed the successful North Korean nuclear programme.
We do not know when the next threat of a high-intensity war will come. We do not know whether it will be in six months, six years or 16 years—but I would put money on its not being 60 years away. The Secretary of State is right to say that the maintenance of a high-intensity war fighting capability must remain the core of our defence programme and must never turn into a collection of peacetime commitments, even though some of them, including Northern Ireland, are vital to our national security. Two issues stem from that. First, when deciding how much we can take on—in particular, the decision, which is very close now, on our future role in Bosnia—we must ask not only whether we can play such a role within an affordable resource base, but how far it will compromise, through overstretch, our ability to maintain that core war fighting capability.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend's comment emphasises the divide across the Chamber. We have heard from the Labour Front Bench that one of the first things a Labour Government would do on coming to office would be to hold a defence review. None of the Labour Front Bench speeches included a clear statement about the criteria for that review. The Labour party is not keen on spending more money on defence. I shall not refer to party conferences again, but it is certainly not proposing any more money. Moreover, there is a terrific appetite on the Labour Back Benches for more and more peacekeeping operations. I suspect that the core requirement for a high-intensity capability with world class armed forces whose prime role is to defend the vital interests of this

639
country within our principal alliance would be progressively eroded and undermined if the Labour party was ever to take power.
In the closing minutes of my speech, I should like to focus on personnel issues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is replying to today's debate. The Government have undoubtedly given us the tools, particularly in the past few months. They have given the armed forces a series of extremely important orders. The three Air Force orders made in the summer came on top of earlier orders for the Apache, the medium-lift helicopters, the Hercules, the three new frigates and the amphibious ships announced in July, but we still have serious concerns about personnel matters.
I welcome the fact that recruitment is beginning to pick up a little, but overstretch has become a serious problem. The Navy's commitments have increased by one third in the past 10 years, while the number of warships has fallen by one third. The result is that our ship crews are working twice as hard. One hears again and again of examples of overstretch in the Army. I recently heard of a soldier who has spent three consecutive Christmases away from his family. If that soldier does not get back from Bosnia in November, this will be his fourth Christmas away. People understand the need to make such sacrifices. None the less, numbers are becoming extremely tight.
I would like to make four points about personnel, and I am sure that, as ever, my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to them. First, one element of the Bett report is causing enormous disquiet in the forces—it has been mentioned to me by several people at different levels. It concerns the prospect of job reviews across the three services.
A little of that occurred under the Labour Government in the 1960s, and there was endless hassle and argument over, for example, the relative merits of a tank commander and an engineer section commander. Re view caused much disquiet and unhappiness. The idea that we should extend it across all ranks in the forces and begin to determine a much larger proportion of the pay packet by people's individual jobs rather than simply their rank and how long they have held it may appeal enormously to those who are management consultant minded, but it is deeply unpopular in the forces and a recipe for instability. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the idea is best buried.
The second personnel issue is about rents. The Ministry has made some welcome changes to its proposals to sell off married quarters stock It is no secret that I was opposed to the measure, but I welcome the fact that the site exchange option has been dropped. I also welcome the appointment of Sir Thomas Macpherson as chairman of the Annington trust. Nevertheless, the biggest single factor that will affect the ordinary MOD tenant next April will be whether they receive another swingeing rent rise from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
Mr. David Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extra cost incurred by the Ministry of Defence—it is hundreds of millions of pounds—now that the married quarters have been sold off will be clawed back from the service families by doubling or tripling their rents over a period of time?
Mr. Brazier: No, I will not make that allegation because it would not be true. There is a clear commitment
640
that service rents will be fixed by the AFPRB. After discussions between it and the Bett committee, which are minuted in Sir Michael Bett's report, and after reading the AFPRB's last report, it seems that it needs some steering from Ministers. We cannot become neutral on the issue of accompanied service in the two mobile services—the Army and the Air Force. It must surely be right to fix rents at a level that creates an incentive to officers and senior NCOs to keep their families with them.
I understand that there is a worrying trend among middle-ranking—and even some fairly senior—officers of leaving their families behind when they are posted to Germany or on tours to Northern Ireland. I have been told, although I have not been able to confirm it, that a brigade commander who is about to take up his post in Germany is leaving his family behind. I am not being critical of the individuals concerned, but there is something wrong with the incentive structure when that is happening. When young soldiers' wives in Germany see their husbands go off on unaccompanied tours to Bosnia, they want the reassurance that the wives of the command structure go too.
The matter is extremely important and I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, even if it means slightly smaller salary rises, the Government should ask the AFPRB to fix rents at a level that will provide an incentive to keep military communities together by encouraging accompanied service.
Mr. Viggers: May I remind my hon. Friend that commanders who are offered service housing suffer a penalty if their wives spend more than a certain number of nights a year in their quarters? That often means that the commander will encourage his wife not to be there most of the year but to live elsewhere and to visit only on special occasions. Does he agree that that is disadvantageous to service discipline abroad?
Mr. Brazier: Yes, I thoroughly agree.
The implication in the Armed Forces Pay Review Body report and the Bett report that we should be neutral on whether we have accompanied service as we move towards what they regard as fair rents less a discount—a discount of 38 per cent. is built in for the disadvantages of service life—seems totally wrong. I strongly suggest that the Government should try to fix the allowance structure and rents especially to encourage accompanied service.
My third point on personnel concerns reserves. The House has heard me speak at some length on this subject, as I know has my hon. Friend the Minister. There have been two very important advances this year. The welcome Reserve Forces Act 1996 will make it much easier for people such as those serving in the reserve force in Bosnia to do so flexibly. In addition, the announcement that the reserve forces will have a bigger say in their own future with the appointment next year of a reservist on a part-time basis as the next director of reserves is also welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend has some news on when that appointment is likely to take place.
Having read the report from the Pentagon on the role of reserves, and considering it has managed to save so much money by finding so many more roles for reserves. who after all cost less than a fifth of their regular counterparts, I cannot help feeling that reserves must be

641
part of the key to ensuring that the best equipment remains affordable. Whole categories of activity have been taken over by reservists in America, ranging from legal services and aerial rescue services to two thirds of their airlift capability. We are doing some of that, but we could do much more.
My final point on personnel concerns almost the only point with which I agreed with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—indeed it was almost the only point that was raised in all Opposition Members' speeches with which I agreed. It concerns the staff college. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is deeply concerned about the issue and that he is taking a close personal interest in it. The armed forces, and the Army in particular, are deeply worried by the uncertainty about the staff college. Even if it is impossible in the short term to find a tri-service site that is big enough and usable, the present temporary arrangements cannot continue indefinitely. It would be much better to send the Army back to Camberley, where it has some of the best purpose-built facilities in the world, than to allow the uncertainty and the temporary arrangements to continue.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was absolutely right to confirm yesterday that it is the Conservative party that believes profoundly in the core capability of our armed forces to defend us and deter a high-intensity war. He put his money where his mouth is by placing a number of essential orders over the summer. I urge the House to approve the defence estimates.
6.46 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: In the first part of his speech, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) was desperate to manufacture threats. We were told during the cold war that the Soviet Union constituted the greatest possible threat. We are now told that there are much worse threats. It seems that any excuse—the country can go to ruins—can be used just so long as we buy the next weapons system.
The cold war led to a nuclear arms race that brought the world to the brink of destruction. The stock of those weapons, upgraded by this and other Governments, still has the potential for vast destruction. With the cold war over, there is an opportunity for significant nuclear disarmament, but it is being squandered by the Government.
It is a scandal that this country's nuclear weapons policy has not been properly revisited. Britain should not be basing its defence policy on nuclear weapons. Many distinguished British defence experts such as Lord Carver agree. The Government's deterrent argument does not stand up, except for the Saddam Husseins and other nuclear proliferators, who can use exactly the same argument as that deployed by the Secretary of State yesterday simply by deleting the word "Britain" and inserting the name of their own country.
The nuclear weapons programme has sucked up far more resources than has ever been acknowledged. It costs far more than has been declared. Nuclear weapons are the biggest single hidden cost in British history. Such opacity continues today, and even some senior Opposition Members believe the Government's line that, by the next election, 98 per cent. of expenditure on Trident will have
642
been completed. That is plainly wrong. Ninety-eight per cent. of procurement or capital costs may have been spent or committed by then, but that ignores the running costs, which may double or treble the procurement costs over the next 25 years, not to mention the decommissioning costs.
To get some idea of how much nuclear weapons really cost, I tabled a series of parliamentary questions, asking why British defence expenditure is so much higher than that of the average of other European members of NATO. First, I asked what were the main functions carried out by our armed forces which were not carried out by those of other European members of NATO. On 16 April I was told that those functions were the provision of the so-called nuclear deterrent, overseas garrisons and support for the General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland). That seemed a useful start. I then asked what was the estimated annual cost of each of those functions.
On 17 May I was told that maintaining the so-called nuclear deterrent should cost no more than about £200 million a year, that overseas garrisons cost some £360 million a year to maintain and that the General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland) cost some £525 million a year—a total of some £1,080 million annually.
Armed with this information, I then asked for the latest official comparisons between the UK's expenditure on defence and the average expenditure of the other European members of NaTO. The answer given to me on 12 June was fascinating. It showed that we spend three times as much on defence in purely financial terms as the average for our European allies. When those figures are calculated as a proportion of gross domestic product, it turns out that the declared expenditure for the three extra roles is a fraction more than 0.1 per cent. of UK GDP. Bearing in mind the fact that the UK spends 3.1 per cent. of its GDP on defence, and that the European average is 2.3 per cent., roughly 0.7 per cent.—or £5 billion a year—of UK GDP is still effectively unaccounted for. Incidentally—this relates to the ten-minute Bill that I introduced earlier today—£5 billion is 32 times the sum needed to reduce class sizes to 30 pupils in every school.
Where has this money gone? The major roles not undertaken by other European armed forces have been taken into account. Assuming that there is no major fraud in the Ministry of Defence, the money must be being spent on something. I suggest that a fair chunk of it goes to support Britain's nuclear weapons infrastructure. It is time that the Government came clean about it. It smacks not only of excessive secrecy but of poor management.
Eighteen out of 21 major defence projects examined by the National Audit Office had slippage on their in-service dates. I put that down to poor management. The NAO reported that 23 major defence projects had increased in cost to the end of last year by a total of £695 million, the equivalent of another four and a half years of reduced class sizes. The fact that there was supposedly no protective equipment in the Gulf for personnel spraying pesticides when a simple facelet—never mind all the chemical warfare equipment—would have been adequate was surely, again, poor management.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said on television that, if British business were run like the armed forces, the British economy would be like Japan's. I disagree. Any business run by an MOD-type of incompetent management would have called in the receivers years ago.

643
A classic example of poor management by the MOD has to be the replacement of a single aircraft. On 16 May 1995, a Nimrod aircraft crashed into the sea off the coast of Scotland following engine failure. This was not one of the famous maritime reconnaissance aircraft so often used for fisheries protection or search and rescue operations, but a version of the Nimrod called an R1 which entered service in July 1974 but was not publicly acknowledged until this decade. Until the crash, there were three of these aircraft in service.
The Nimrod R1 was designed for a specific role—to fly close to Soviet airspace so that the Soviet air defence radar would track it. In doing this, the R1 would gather information useful in helping the Royal Air Force V-bomber force to penetrate the Soviet radar screen to deliver nuclear weapons. In recent years, two significant things have happened to change that scenario. First.. the Soviet Union, like the cold war, no longer exists. Secondly, the RAF will no longer carry nuclear weapons from 1998.
It therefore came as a surprise to discover, as I did through parliamentary questions, that this wasteful Tory Government are planning to replace the crashed aircraft at a cost of some £30 million. In addition, the new aircraft and the two existing ones are to be upgraded through a programme called Star Window, at a cost of another £30 million. That is on top of an annual running cost of more than £7 million for 51 Squadron which operates the R1. Millions of pounds are to be spent on this cold war relic. No announcement was made to Parliament about it—the information had to be dragged out of the MOD. What is the money for?
The Ministry should be more open about what the aircraft might be used for—E60 million is a high price to pay for a cold war dinosaur. While I am dealing with openness—
Mr. Brazier: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He mentioned a cold war dinosaur. Many of his colleagues have been saying that we should be doing more about the problems in Iraq and should be more concerned about the massacre of Iraqi civilians by Saddam Hussein. Highly capable aircraft are necessary to do that, so is the hon. Gentleman in fact saying that we should not be involved at all but should leave it to the Americans?
Mr. Cohen: This is not the time to have a full debate about Iraq, but I think that the problem would have been much better solved politically. Had we not sold Saddam Hussein armaments before the Gulf war—as the Conservative Government did—we would have been in a much better position.
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that, even a year after Saddam Hussein carried out the Halabja massacre, the British Ministry of Defence was sponsoring the Baghdad arms fair? That was a naked attempt to sell British arms to a regime that had already massacred Kurdish people in the disgusting attack on Halabja and which was already perpetuating the most appalling human rights abuses. The Ministry of Defence put arms sales ahead of its concern for human rights in Iraq then, and I believe that it is doing the same in other parts of the world, including Saudi Arabia, now.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend is right. I have not heard any Labour or, indeed, any Conservative Member suggest
644
that another Gulf war operation should be mounted against Iraq. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
During a debate on the RAF on 2 May 1991, I raised the question of low flying during the Gulf conflict. I said then:
"the problem did not relate to the bravery of the pilots, which was beyond argument; the problem related to the tactics laid down by the Ministry of Defence."—[Official Report, 2 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 484.]
I argued that low flying was the wrong technique to be used in the circumstances. I was criticised for saying that both by my Front-Bench colleagues and by Conservative Members.
Over time, how ever, more information has become available, most notably from Sir Peter de la Billière, the British commander in the Gulf war. He said that the MOD did not want to abandon low-level attacks, as that
"would impact on the RAF's strategy developed for Europe."
Sir Peter had wanted to abandon low-level attacks because the casualty rate was too high, but had been overruled by London. He had particularly harsh words for an individual he described as
"a senior officer in the RAF",
and feels "extremely resentful" about
"the authoritarian way he tried to impose his view."
John Keegan, the defence editor of The Daily Telegraph, wrote in that paper on 14 January this year that the senior officer who exerted his authority over Sir Peter was
"acting under the influence of a doctrine that had lost its point."
Keegan concluded his article by saying:
"Doctrinal rigidity is a defect of which armed forces must cure themselves at all costs."
Alan Clark, replying for the Government in the 1991 debate, said that the United Kingdom
"had the only air force capable of positive runway denial on Iraqi airfields".—[Official Report, 2 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 521.]
That was patently incorrect, as Sir Peter said in his book on the war. Sir Peter also stated that Chuck Homer, coalition air force commander,
"considered our method of operation a pretty crazy one in this environment".
While it is odd for me to agree with a Gulf war commander, I feel a certain comfort in having my then unpopular views vindicated.
The weapon used in the Gulf by the RAF to attack runways—the JP233—is to be replaced, although there is no word yet about exactly what will replace it. Will the Government learn the lessons of the Gulf war and choose a system that will not be dangerous to the pilots who, one day, may have to use it?
The other issue that must be taken into account in replacing the JP233 is that of anti-personnel mines. Considering the international uproar in recent years, I hope that the Government will ensure that any anti-runway system considered does not include anti-personnel as a part of it—as the JP233 does. My fear is that Ministry of Defence inertia will lead to the same mistakes being made, and that the JP233 replacement will have the same faults and the same mines as the JP233.

645
In next year's debate on the defence estimates, my colleagues and I will be speaking from the Government Benches. I hope that a change of Government will also lead to a change in Government culture—for greater openness and fewer mistakes, much less money wasted and fewer immoral decisions.
7 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)—who is, even now, being congratulated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Occasionally the hon. Member for Leyton and I tour galleries and exhibitions together as members of the all-party arts and heritage group, and I much enjoy those visits. I must, however, say that he is profoundly mistaken and totally wrong in most of his comments in this debate. I speak not only of his comments on the Gulf war, but, particularly, of those on the cold war.
The hon. Member for Leyton seems to have learnt absolutely nothing from the end of the cold war. He seems not to have realised that plans have been found, and confirmed as authentic, for the invasion of western Europe. That was the purpose of the Warsaw pact armies. Those armies were not there because they enjoyed it, but for the purpose of invading western Europe. There was, and there still is, no doubt about that. I am sorry that he has learnt nothing from the collapse of the Warsaw pact.
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend will be aware that the 7th Armoured Brigade recently conducted a major exercise in Poland, which I visited on several occasions. On two occasions I met the general who would have commanded the Polish army in the event of such an operation against western Europe, and he was quite free in telling me exactly what their tasks were. Those tasks were exactly as described by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Leyton refuses to believe them. He believes that all those Soviet and Warsaw pact officers were cuddly teddy bears, merely enjoying themselves in eastern Europe.
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman is again making the point that I ascribed to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier): that the threat from the Soviet Union in the cold war was the greatest that it could possibly be. But the Soviet Union and the cold war no longer exist. Why do we need all these new weapons systems now?
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me, because, before the end of the cold war, he was asking why we needed nuclear weapons systems. He asked that then, and I am sure that he would admit it. It is always interesting to see the second amendment on defence debates. The second amendment on today's Order Paper is supported by 7.5 per cent. of Labour Members. One Labour Member in 13 is willing to go on the record—never mind those who are not willing to go on the record—as saying that they support
"the call for the scrapping of Trident as an essential step towards eliminating nuclear weapons world-wide … and to end the United Kingdom's involvement in the conventional arms trade".
646
The Opposition have the nerve to call Conservative Members divided.
Yesterday we listened to the shadow defence spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), berating the Government for making cuts in defence expenditure and saying how a Labour Government—God forbid—would have done better. It was unfortunate that he could not see the glum faces on the Opposition Back Benches behind him, as Conservative Members could.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that he is in favour of an arms race?
Mr. Robathan: I have said nothing of the kind. I am not in favour of an arms race. I am saying that I am in favour of the good defence of this realm, as are all Conservative—but, sadly, not all Opposition—Members.
The debate has, as always, ranged wide over defence matters. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that I have not always been in 100 per cent. agreement with Government defence policy, and that I have viewed with regret reductions in the armed forces over the past four years. I fear that we may yet live to regret those reductions. I am, however, delighted that there is now a firm commitment that there will be no real cuts in the defence budget in this Parliament. Defence has taken huge cuts in this decade, and the cuts in no other Department could compare with those cuts. The defence budget should now be exempt.
I should like to speak briefly on the subject of Gulf war syndrome. I am not a doctor or a scientist, but I was in the Gulf during the war and speak from some limited personal experience. There were some very unpleasant injections against anthrax and bubonic plague. Vile pills were administered, and, more conventionally, one was expected to take paludrin against malaria. The Gulf was astonishingly cold, often very wet, and, inevitably, we got very dirty. I was in a staff job, so I spent very little time digging trenches, which makes one very dirty—[Interruption.] One might say "idle".
Gulf war syndrome may exist, and it certainly needs to be investigated. It is a very serious matter, as the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned yesterday, and all members of the armed forces deserve to be looked after properly if they have contracted anything during their service. For that reason, I welcome the research programme that will be overseen by the Medical Research Council.
The Gulf war was, however, a war, and one must ask what priorities an army should have in war. Yesterday an hon. Member mentioned out-of-date gas mask canisters. The important test is whether those canisters were still working, and not the date that was stamped on them. I have been known to eat out-of-date food from supermarkets, as I am sure all hon. Members must have done.
The desert can be notoriously dirty and full of flies. All manner of disease, such as typhus and dysentery, is spread by flies. On many occasions in past campaigns, casualties and mortalities from disease have been much higher than anything the enemy inflicted. Surely, therefore, the need to ensure a healthy and protected force must have been very high on the list of priorities.

647
Some of the accusations and claims that are being bandied about seem, at best, to be disingenuous. I smell a co-ordinated campaign by lawyers looking for a bandwagon—which is not to belittle the sufferers of various illnesses. Those illnesses, however, do not necessarily confirm the existence of a Gulf war syndrome.
Yesterday I spoke to a friend who had been very ill on his return from the Gulf. He is still serving in the Army and is now, I am delighted to say, fully recovered. He believes that he caught a very debilitating viral infection in the Gulf from being near a sewage works. He took two years to recover from what doctors believe was post-viral fatigue. He told me, first, that he was very well cared for by the armed forces, which is gratifying. Secondly, however—notwithstanding his two years of illness—he told me that he does not believe that he had Gulf war syndrome, if such a syndrome exists.
The nature of Gulf war syndrome seems to change. Organophosphates were not mentioned, at least within my hearing, until very recently. Organophosphates seem to be very dangerous, and I have certainly heard anecdotal evidence from sheep farmers in my constituency in Leicestershire which leads me to think that I would not like to deal with such a substance.
During my military career I spent much time in the tropics, and I recall machines—known as swing fogs—which spread pyrethrum around tents, buildings and people. I understand that swing fogs were particularly effective against flying insects, and I believe that they were used also in the Gulf.
My unit ran a prisoner-of-war camp in northern Saudi Arabia, at Al Quasumah. We had 8,000 prisoners of war pass through the camp, and there were approximately 600 British soldiers there. The weather was getting hotter by the middle of March, but there was never any real disease in the camp, which is a tribute to the high standards of hygiene imposed. The Iraqis came in unhealthy. Some of them had lice, often they were dehydrated and undernourished, and they were certainly dirty and demoralised.
I particularly remember seeing one rather pathetic child of 16 or 17 who had been shot in the foot by an officer on his own side to instil discipline. We fed them, we watered them and we gave treatment to them. I think we sprayed their tents as well—I am sure that we must have done—and we sent them on their way smiling. I have photographs to prove it. They certainly seemed healthy when they left.
I do not know what spray was used around the camp, but I understood that it might have been an organophosphate called malathion. As a precautionary measure against disease, we burnt the camp, but, as far as I am aware, no Coldstream guardsman who was guarding the camp has complained of having Gulf war syndrome.
I remember being told when I was an army cadet as a boy that Army tea had bromide in it to reduce sexual urges. Other hon. Members may recall that. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether that is true and whether I have drunk any bromide?
Mr. Soames: Not only is it true, I understand that it is compulsory in the Conservative party today.
Mr. Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend for that. Sadly, it did not work in the Army and nor does it work in the Conservative party, if reports are true. It certainly did not curb the excesses of the rude and licentious soldiery.
648
During 15 years in the Army, I was exposed to CS gas at least a dozen times. It was part of training. I am now told that it is terribly dangerous—too dangerous to be sprayed in the face of criminals. It was not too dangerous to be used on soldiers in training. It was not pleasant, but I do not seem to have suffered any ill effects and my eyesight is still relatively good, as I can see all the Liberal Democrats sitting on the Benches opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]
During my service, I was subjected to endless injections. Some of them were very painful, especially the gamma globulin injection for hepatitis, which was delivered to the bottom. On exercises abroad, colleagues of mine went down with malaria, leishmaniosis, leptospirosis and other unpleasant diseases. They were real, identified diseases. I fear that that is part of military service and travelling abroad. Those colleagues were extremely well treated and cared for and, when necessary, were given drugs to combat the diseases.
What is Gulf war syndrome? We need to know what it is and whether it really exists. There is a lingering suspicion in my mind that it is a litigious ploy by cynical lawyers in the United States, and some here, using the suffering of others as a means to their own reward.
I welcome the defence estimates, and I particularly welcome the research programme into Gulf health issues, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and others will not be influenced by the high-profile and opportunistic campaign on Gulf war syndrome.
7.12 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Bromide or not, I believe that we are right in thinking that the wife of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is expecting a happy event in the next month or two. We therefore wish them well.
I should like to raise five issues succinctly. Thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I was able, with a delegation from this House, to visit Nepal in January. We went to see Gurkha training at Pokharra. I was able to raise the subject with Sir Charles Guthrie—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—when we were invited by the Army board to its first meeting in Edinburgh, where it was most welcome.
I should like to ask the same question of the Minister as I asked of Sir Charles Guthrie: what do the Government see as the future of the Gurkhas? The official view in Nepal was that they valued the relationship greatly and wanted it to continue. Given the economic situation in Nepal, there are many reasons why it should be continued. What is the Government's policy?
I also have a sub-question in brackets. In his opening speech yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence referred to Exercise Flying Fish. I do not say that I am necessarily unhappy about it, but what is the assessment of the effect that it will have on the Chinese? We are told that it is the biggest exercise to be held in Asia for a long time. What precisely is the purpose of it? Is it just all about the Gurkhas in Brunei and our relations with Singapore or Malaysia? How will it be interpreted in Peking? It could be an expensive and provocative exercise in terms of China.
My second question concerns the Ministry's policy on prisons and land. I think that my hon. Friends from Scotland know that all sorts of rumours are flying around

649
that Ministry of Defence lands will be made available at relatively cheap prices to those who are to run prisons on a private basis. I refer particularly to the Kirknewton site. I do not know whether the rumours are true, but the question ought to be referred to, possibly by letter. There must be a clear policy on Ministry of Defence lands if they are to be sold off, particularly for private prisons—a concept which some of us find totally wrong.
My third question concerns the case that I raised with the Secretary of State during his opening speech. He gave a serious answer, promising to look into it. I refer to the case of Colin Wallace. The difficulty is that the great great grandfather—ministerially—of the Secretary of State is probably responsible. Present Ministers and civil servants have inherited a problem from long, long ago. But-this is a very big but, and a House of Commons point—how is it that, at this stage, information can come to light which persuades the Court of Appeal to give a judgment which, frankly, bears out what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I were trying to tell the House in 1989 and on 12 February 1990, at column 114?
In an Adjournment debate on 27 June 1989, my hon. Friend and I were savagely rubbished by the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). One does not object to being criticised in this House, but to be criticised so ferociously and in such a derogatory manner when it turns out that the Court of Appeal is upholding precisely what we were trying to say really is a bit rich. I have with me the wad of questions—heavens, there are more than 200 of them! If hon. Members, asking the right questions—spot-on questions—receive answers which turn out, in the view of the Court of Appeal, to be inadequate, how can we be persuaded that proper attention is given not to the odd buckshee question but to repeated, detailed questioning?
That brings me to my fourth issue, which concerns what happened in the Gulf war.
Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I see to it that he receives a reply on the matter of Colin Wallace from the Home Secretary? I am not able to deal with the issue. Also, may I reply to him on Kirknewton by letter, because I do not have the facts at my fingertips?
Mr. Dalyell: There ought to be a Government reply. I have never been difficult on the subject of which senior Minister replies. It is an area between the Northern Ireland Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. I would find it totally acceptable if the Home Secretary, as a senior Minister, responded. The matter has reached a stage at which the Government should give an undertaking that the Home Secretary, rather than a junior Minister, will consider it.
On the question of what happened in the Gulf war, I refer to a letter sent to a number of hon. Members on 4 October by the Minister for the Armed Forces, which stated:
"We have now established that certain OP pesticides (other than malathion) were also used in the Gulf: these were dimethyl phosphorthionate, diazinon and azamathiphos. We are conducting urgent investigations into the extent of use of such pesticides and I will write to you once we have a clearer picture on this."
I am loth to criticise what happened in the Gulf, because it may be that everything was done in a hurry. In addition, I do not doubt the good faith of Ministers—other
650
than to ask, what on earth were their scientific advisers doing in relation to these questions? Almost anyone with a knowledge of chemistry knows that there should be a red alert as soon as these substances are involved, and people should have been saying, "Hey! What's this?"
I am not being wise after the event, but the chemicals involved ought to have sounded warning signals. Why, after all this time, did they not send such signals, in the light of the questioning on the matter? I return to a point that I made during the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—if there had been a hot situation in Iraq in August or September 1996, heaven help us. Are we sure that the same thing would not have happened? It is no good covering over the past, because we want to know what will happen in the future.
Paragraph 7 of the Minister's letter states:
"We are now urgently re-examining the records of those who have attended the medical assessment programme and have exhibited a specific range of symptoms to establish whether or not their health is likely to have been affected".
I think that that re-examination ought to have taken place many moons ago, but I accept that the Minister for the Armed Forces will report in good faith everything that he knows to the House.
I wish to refer to a minority view on what we ought to do about the situation in Iraq, but it would be inappropriate for me to argue the issue in detail as I have in Adjournment and other debates. I think that we ought to remove sanctions forthwith, and talk to them. However, it is legitimate to ask in this debate how long the Tornado patrols will continue. I fear that, sooner or later, there will be an attack from Iraq or—more likely—a malfunction. These things happen, as we know; something similar happened just off Blackpool during the Labour party conference. Heaven help us if there is a malfunction in the desert.
Defence Ministers ought to have listened to what Flight Lieutenant Nicol—a pilot who was shot down in the Gulf—said on Radio Leeds, during a programme on which I and the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) were invited. We hope that, if there was a malfunction, pilots would eject. If they eject, we hope that they land without losing their lives. They would then almost certainly be captured, and my fear is that they would be paraded with maximum television coverage, with CNN in attendance, through the streets of downtown Baghdad.
What do we do then? I hope that we will not automatically threaten the kind of missile attack that was talked about in August and September, because that raises all sorts of questions about our obligations to the UN. I register extreme unhappiness about any missile attack on Iraq—let alone those that are not agreed by members of the Security Council.
The justification for the previous operation in 1990—whether one agreed with it or not—was that it was a UN operation. It is a different matter when one goes ahead on the basis of Anglo-American decision-making. What is the Government's attitude to operations not agreed by China, the Soviet Union or France, for heaven's sake? When there is that kind of unhappiness among other nations, are we justified in going ahead with the Americans?
Having been to Iraq—rightly or wrongly—three years after the Gulf war, I can say that we are getting ourselves into a position where we are simply being hated by a

651
whole generation of a people with whom we had far better trading relations than the Americans had. People ought to remember that the best trading partners in the Arab world for Britain were the Libyans, against whom we have sanctions, and the Iraqis. It is very little skin off the noses of the Americans commercially that sanctions are imposed on those countries.
Finally, during the recess, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I asked for Parliament to be recalled when it looked as if there was to be another Gulf war. We asked the Prime Minister this question:
"To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 9 September, if he will state the conditions in which he believes the public interest requires Parliament to be recalled, with particular reference to the involvement of British personnel on active service".
The Prime Minister replied:
"A decision to recall Parliament depends upon the prevailing situation. It is made after consultation with colleagues and through the usual channels."—[Official Report. 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 649–650.]
Some of us think that, as soon as it is clear that this House might be sending British service men into military action, the House of Commons ought to be recalled to discuss the matter before any irrevocable steps are taken.
7.27 pm
Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is a very good reason why nobody can trust Labour on defence, as he—along with 20 colleagues—signed an amendment calling for one-sided nuclear disarmament that would, in effect, render this country totally defenceless.
I take issue with the opening remarks yesterday by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who painted a bleak picture of poor morale in the services. That is simply not the case, as I have seen for myself.
I am now a third of the way through my parliamentary armed services scheme, attached to the Army. I must say that it has been an eye-opening experience. I have always been a great admirer of our armed forces, and I have never doubted their great professionalism, but to see it in practice is a humbling experience. I do not believe that anyone realises how hard they work. The pace is killing, with back-to-back training, exercises, deployment and retraining. Those magnificent men and women are deeply committed, and are proud of their work. As a result, they are the flag carriers for Great Britain plc all over the world.
In a deeply dangerous world, with many interests of our own to protect, besides our commitments to international forces, are we perhaps asking too much of our services and giving them too small a share of the national budget? After all, the services are an extension of our foreign policy. Our men are deployed in a broader range of tasks promoting our interests than at any other time in the past 50 years. But commanding officers tell me that "can do" has reached its limits. They cannot ask more of their men, because there are simply not enough hours or days available. Overstretch is being caused by asking too much of them and giving them an ever reducing share of the budget in real terms.
Although I agree with the Select Committee's comments, I believe it would be helpful if Ministers assured us that this year's defence estimates will not again
652
be undermined by any more defence cuts in the forthcoming Budget. The importance of such an assurance cannot be overstated. For years, we have been cutting the allocation given to defence spending in real terms. The truth is that we went too far, and are now paying the price.
I appreciate the fact that we are now deeply committed to arms procurement, amounting to about 39 per cent. of our defence budget. That is most important in the modern world. The fact that we allocate to defence only a fraction more than the average NATO country is not a fair barometer, however. The fact is that our well-being depends to a greater extent on international trade and investment, which need protecting. In short, a military presence is an extension of our foreign policy, and it is short-sighted to cut our best British export.
I welcome the fact that underspend can be carried forward, but in the final analysis that just scratches the surface. Some of the money has already been allocated to procurement, but not all of it. There have been some unexpected savings.
I issue a special plea for more resources to be put into recruitment. We face a serious manning problem, and share colleagues' concern at the shortfall of 4,000 recruits to the Army. These manning problems do affect our operational ability; they also affect the stability of families, because so much more is being asked of the men already in the services. I am aware, too, that the Navy and the Royal Air Force face recruitment shortfalls.
The problem began when we made extensive cuts under "Options for Change" as a short-term economy measure, without recognising the long-term effects. One very damaging such effect has been on the Army's image, and hence its ability to recruit. It has been seen as a career in decline. We also cut money for the usual recruitment methods too severely: the closure of some high street recruiting offices, the ending of the junior leaders, and so on. I say: hats off to the present Adjutant General, Sir Michael Rose, who is a man not lacking in determination. But in my view he needs a bigger budget to enable him to tackle this problem boldly.
We must also return to high-profile advertising. We need more high street recruiting offices—I do not believe that leaflets in job centres are good enough. They are woefully inadequate. Employment officers in Sutton tell me that it is not their job to promote the services above any other career. We therefore need to market the modern Army. Schools must be encouraged to start their own combined cadet forces—I regret to say that very few have them. Careers officers and advisers should promote the armed services as a positive career instead of sidelining them. We need to show that life in the Army is relevant. What is more, the Army is an extremely good employer.
Joining the Army today means acquiring skills and training that may prove useful when the soldier leaves. I hope that it will be possible for soldiers to acquire NVQs in much the same way as people can in the police force. The false image of the infantry is that it consists of people with fixed bayonets charging around digging ditches. Wrong. The modern infantryman is a technical person, using complex weapons and vehicle systems.
The Army teaches valuable skills and habits, instilling discipline, motivation, commitment, loyalty and initiative—all qualities essential to future employers. Above all, the Army provides valuable support for young

653
people from broken families and disadvantaged backgrounds. It gives them a stability that they have never had before.
It is important to concentrate on methods of training. Some have become too rigorous and demanding for today's young people, who have grown up with very little sport. They arrive in the Army quite unfit and with poor muscle tone. They have lived lives of junk food and computer games. When I visited Bassingbourn training regiment, I discovered that the training timetable can be set back because of sprained muscles.
Perhaps it would be better to lengthen the training period to give young people to time to adjust to what is required instead of racing them along and creating serious problems. Ultimately, the result is what matters. Quite often, a young man who shambles into the Army wearing an earring and long hair surprises himself and turns into a fine soldier.
I am not talking just about initial training; high-intensity training is also of the utmost importance. In the course of my parliamentary armed services scheme, I visited the Army training unit at Suffield in Canada. The high-intensity training undergone there is clearly a must for a modern army. It is rigorous and demanding.
The soldiers spend three weeks out on the prairie night and day in all conditions—below zero in autumn and spring, or temperatures soaring into the forties in summer. The exercise is intended to simulate as closely as possible the real thing, within the bounds of safety. I certainly hope that there will never be any cuts in such training. I have watched the combined forces there wheeling across the prairie, engaging in live firing and generally charging around. I have seen how highly effective such forces can be.
At the same unit, adventure training is experienced, giving every young man the chance to see whether he can go beyond what he thought was his limit. I myself was put through a free-fall parachute jump. I never believed I could do it, but I did. I trust that this high-intensity training will be regarded as sacrosanct.
There is a danger that, with so much peacekeeping to be done, our military capability to fight a war may ultimately be damaged. Focusing too much on peacekeeping work might lead to a loss of fighting skills. There are likely to be many more peacekeeping missions, and soldiers will undoubtedly find them rewarding, but we must never lose sight of the skills needed for high-intensity war—skills that cannot be learned overnight. Such skills are an insurance policy for our future security. The threats are still out there, and we must always be prepared for them.
As we approach a general election, I hope that the electorate will study carefully the widely contrasting approaches to the defence of our country by the Government—the Conservative party—and old Labour, real Labour. The Opposition's commitment to a strategic defence review is a masquerade for radical defence cuts—we should make no bones about that—because they have a wide social agenda that must be paid for. Nobody can trust Labour, and it would be folly for anybody ever to think of doing so.
I am enormously proud of the Government for their commitment to giving our magnificent fighting forces the support they need. I have no doubt, and no hesitation, in supporting and approving the defence estimates.
7.40 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It has been an interesting debate thus far, but I cannot be the only person who was appalled by the sense of levity surrounding the contribution from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the use of poisons in Iraq. The story coming out about the use of organophosphates in Iraq, and the damage done to so many people, resembles the measures used against the nuclear test veterans from 1955, whose case was ignored for so long. In too many such cases, the Ministry of Defence turns a blind eye and refuses to discuss the problem. It is not right that the House should be laughing and joking when such matters are raised.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) talked about the joy of physical education and forcing people to be physically stronger. She should think about some of the reasons why some of our young people have appalling physiques. Is it anything to do with the cuts in physical education in schools and the sale of school playing fields? Those policies have led to a lack of exercise or any opportunities for games for so many inner-city children.
Why do they sit in front of computer screens and televisions all day? Because the youth centre down the road has been closed because the Government will not fund it. We should be realistic—social problems are not solved by forcing people into the armed forces, which is the agenda that the hon. Lady appears to want.
This debate takes place at the end of the 20th century, after the horrors of two world wars and with another 20 million dead from conventional wars since the end of the second world war. What are we doing? We are talking about enemies and about arming ourselves for real wars. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has said that we must not concentrate too much on peacekeeping, because we must get ready for a war; but nobody has produced an analysis of the origin of any supposed threat.
From the experience of recent years, including the Gulf war, we must ask ourselves some hard questions. What were we doing arming Saddam Hussein? Why did we ignore the systematic abuse of human rights in Iraq, while we sold arms and military-related equipment to that country? We are currently arming Saudi Arabia to the teeth, even though we know that that country has an appalling and abominable record on human rights, which many in the House dare not mention, because they do not want to upset the arms market.
Our obsession with selling arms around the world is poisoning our attitude to human rights abuses. That is why I am happy to append my name to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), which suggests cutting defence expenditure, recognises the problems of the obsession with selling arms and specifically draws attention to the World Court decision on nuclear weapons and the problems and real costs of the continuation of the Trident programme.
I find it very sad that the Secretary of State for Defence did not once, in a lengthy contribution, utter the words "comprehensive test ban treaty"—unless I missed them—nor did he mention the problems surrounding the ratification of that treaty because of the attitudes of Britain and France. France undertook all those nuclear tests last year, and Britain is extending its nuclear capability

655
through the construction of the fourth Trident nuclear submarine and the potential arming of up to 512 warheads.
Surely now, at the end of the 20th century, we should urgently consider getting the nuclear comprehensive test ban treaty ratified and start on the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as envisaged by President Gorbachev more than 10 years ago. He sadly lost office later, and could be described as one of the many victims of the cold war.
This year, we have had an historic decision. The International Court of Justice in The Hague, on 8 July, made one of the most important legal decisions it has been asked to make. The question put before the court was:
"Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?"
The court advised:
"In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, their destructive capacity and capacity to cause untold human suffering and damage for generations to come, their use in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for the law applicable in armed conflict."
It concluded:
"the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law, applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law."
That decision is of profound significance. I find it depressing that the Secretary of State, despite my intervention, was unable even to refer to the decision of the International Court of Justice.
The court accepted that nuclear weapons would violate human rights and rejected the idea that environmental laws do not deal with war. In particular, paragraph 32 of its decision states that the general obligation on states
"to respect and protect the natural environment … applies to the actual use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict."
It accepted the view that, if the use of nuclear weapons is illegal, the threat of their use is also illegal. We see implicit threats of the use of nuclear weapons from the degree of arming—and indeed, from certain politicians at times, we hear explicit threats of the use of nuclear weapons.
The court also accepted that mere possession of nuclear weapons could be a threat. It accepted that nuclear-free zone treaties point towards eventual general abolition of war; that nuclear weapons are subject to the laws of war, specifically the non-use of weapons against civilians; that nuclear states are responsible for the incidental effects of nuclear weapons on neutral states; and that the five nuclear powers had failed to provide any basis to justify the limited use of nuclear weapons.
The court also declared that article VI of the non-proliferation treaty is an obligation on the nuclear states to achieve total nuclear disarmament. The court also refused to accept the case for the legality of low-yield nuclear weapons.
It is important to get those matters on the record. Some people have pontificated about the importance of the International Court of Justice, but when it says something that is not acceptable to the nuclear states they are strangely silent. I hope that the House will have opportunities to return to that matter in future, because it is important that we have that discussion.
Surely we will not enter the 21st century by preparing our capability for the total annihilation of the planet, when the real problems are the impoverishment of the south, the
656
enrichment of the richest in the north and the consistent environmental destruction brought about by a global trading system that will lead to the loss of all our livelihoods in the long run.
The defence estimates make much, as Conservative Members often do, about the sale of arms around the world. I mentioned earlier the question of human rights abuses in countries to which we sell arms. At the moment, many people are concerned about the situation in Indonesia. I was delighted when the Nobel prize was awarded to the bishop in East Timor and to José Ramos Horta for his work in opposing the illegal occupation of East Timor.
Sadly, Britain is a major arms supplier to Indonesia, and that fact is used as a diplomatic bulwark by the regime in Jakarta to continue to oppress the Timorese people. Hawk aircraft have been used to bomb Indonesian villages, and if anyone doubts my word, they can meet people from East Timor, who can give chapter and verse on what happened.
We then have the question of arms exports by this country, their subsidy by the Ministry of Defence, and the amount spent on promoting the sale of arms. We appear to be spending an inordinate amount promoting arms sales. Indeed, 750 people are employed by the Defence Exports Services Organisation promoting arms sales, while only 1,000 people are employed by the Department of Trade and Industry to promote the other 98 per cent. of British exports around the world.
Our obsession with selling arms around the world blinds us to human rights abuses. Because of the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia, the British Government are in no position to criticise what goes on there, any more than what goes on in any other Gulf state or Indonesia. We are in no position to criticise the destruction of Diego Garcia and the removal of people from it 30 years ago because of our obsession with the arms industry, arms exports and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the ten-minute limit on speeches.
7.50 pm
Rev. William McCrea: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to speak in an important defence estimates debate. It will come as no surprise to the House that I have little in common with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I shall approve the defence estimates before us as I believe that is the responsible position that hon. Members should take.
I wish to express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for the excellent equipment provided to our soldiers to allow them to fight aggressors and save lives, not only at home but worldwide. They are carrying out their duties with sensitivity and expertise. I join other hon. Members who have said that they are proud of our armed forces. I, too, am proud of their efforts.
This debate is overshadowed by the brutal and cruel murder of Warrant Officer James Bradwell as a result of the IRA bomb attack on the Army headquarters in Lisburn. I express my appreciation to all the men and women who serve in Northern Ireland with great expertise and tremendous courage in the face of a vile aggressor. No one can fully understand the pain and grief that

657
Warrant Officer James Bradwell's family experiences, except those who have been in the same valley of sorrow. No words will comfort his grieving family circle, but I trust that the expression of our sympathy will help them in the midst of their time of great bereavement. It was a dastardly murder, unjustified and blatantly sectarian.
It would be easy to leave our grieving at that and just move on, but the Government have a responsibility to bring to justice those who planned and perpetrated that carnage. The Ministry of Defence and the Government are responsible for explaining how such an attack was permitted to penetrate what was boasted to be the best protected Army headquarters in the United Kingdom. There is little point in spending vast sums of taxpayers' money on equipment and personnel if that manpower cannot be properly deployed to protect itself.
The blame for the attack cannot be placed on any soldier or mistake made in that Army base. It lies fairly and squarely with the IRA murderers, and that must be clearly stated. It also lies on the shoulders of their political masters, Adams and McGuinness. When Martin McGuinness was before the court in the Irish Republic in 1992, he said that he was very proud to have been the IRA commander in Londonderry, yet certain hon. Members wanted to parade Adams along the corridors of this House. Thankfully, the House was spared that incident and the nausea of witnessing the likes of those who will not utter a word of condemnation against the IRA murder gangs' activities but seek to hide under a cloak of some kind of democracy.
The Prime Minister has been strong in his condemnation of the bomb attack, as he should be; but the grave reality for him and his Government is that, had they heeded those who told them that the so-called "peace process" was started on a phoney premise and that it was a tactical move by the IRA to squeeze concessions from the Government, the security apparatus in Northern Ireland would not have dropped its guard. In that respect, the Government were foolish with the lives of their citizens in Northern Ireland. They relied on the groundless trust that they had developed with the Irish Government and through their contacts with IRA-Sinn Fein, which suggested that the IRA would not return to bombing Northern Ireland or to the bombing campaign on the mainland.
Well, the IRA has returned, and has returned with a vengeance. Instead of sobering up to the realities, the security forces and the civilian population are put further at risk by a policy of refusing to close the political door to Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government remain determined to bring the Provisional IRA into the process, despite the bombing. The bomb at Thiepval is not the first in the latest round of IRA bombings and, sadly, it will not be the last. The IRA will use any tactic—a phoney peace if that suits their game, or war—to achieve their goal of crushing the British in Ulster.
The Government have not faced that reality. They pretend that they can make a working assumption that the IRA means peace when it says it. They asked the IRA to say that there would be a "permanent" ceasefire, but it would not. The reality is that it could not say "permanent", because it did not mean it and had no intention of having a permanent ceasefire. I read a
658
document in this House at the time saying that the IRA had an agenda to which it was working closely, and that it was not a genuine ceasefire.
The Government continue to implement a softly softly security policy in the light of the peace talks in Stormont. The 100 security concessions made to the IRA—that is not my claim but is boasted in a document produced by the Northern Ireland Office—have not been retracted. One would have thought that the Government would withdraw every concession that they made to the IRA in the course of a phoney truce, but those 100 concessions still stand, and the demand goes on for more. Not only are the Government inviting more trouble from the IRA but, by such a policy, they are preparing the ground for it to destroy Northern Ireland.
Others are in that messy deal as well. The Government have given in to pressure from America, Dublin and the IRA to make a deal with the IRA. They want a settlement no matter what the cost. In the past few weeks, we have seen that the price must be paid. It was paid by Warrant Officer Bradwell. Sadly, if measures sufficient to meet the needs in Northern Ireland are not taken against the murderers, it will be paid by many others before this process is done.
To the Government, the present process is about one thing: getting the IRA to the table. Sadly, Her Majesty's Opposition are playing the same game. The process is about Sinn Fein-IRA and its needs and aspirations—everyone else is secondary. The process is not progressing the aims of the Union—which I believe in and which the Prime Minister has stated so many times—and it is not about achieving decommissioning. My constituents were very hurt when they heard that, if guns were handed over by the IRA or other paramilitary organisations as part of an amnesty in Northern Ireland, they would not be tested ballistically. For example, when my cousin was murdered—when the IRA came to the door—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
8 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: Like the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), I honour the memory of Warrant Officer Bradwell. When I think about the emergency in Northern Ireland, I am filled with admiration for the professionalism and the discipline of the British soldiers in Northern Ireland. I do not think that any other nation could have coped with that challenge over so many years with such bravery, discipline and professionalism.
Two important aerospace factories and one RAF maintenance unit are located in my constituency and employ more than 4,000 people. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence and its Ministers have a huge influence, directly or indirectly, over employment and prosperity in the community that I represent. Ministers' decisions have crucial consequences in north-east Wales and in neighbouring Cheshire and Wirral communities. Ministry of Defence procurement can make or break the aerospace industry and clearly will decide the future of British Aerospace plc.
I turn first to RAF Sealand. I have explained my distaste for market testing as a commercial philosophy. However, as the Government insist on operating it, I am driven to state that RAF Sealand's in-house bid must win

659
against Brown and Root and GEC. Most of the United Kingdom's defence electronics industry wants RAF Sealand to remain under Government control, as whoever operates it has a stranglehold over the maintenance of most MOD combat systems. RAF Sealand maintains two thirds of RAF electronics work and critical Army and Navy systems.
I am pleased to announce that BAE Dynamics, Cossor, Racal Electronics plc, Lucas, Siemens and Shorts have joined the Sealand alliance to support the in-house bid. My 1,600 RAF constituents have achieved 35 per cent. more output with 14 per cent. fewer people. That is a brilliant achievement but, regrettably, £1 million was spent compiling the in-house bid. More money could have been saved for the taxpayer without the hassle of market testing.
I do not want to see more than 300 RAF service men forced to work under industry control. I think that there is a conflict of interest under market testing: does the service man do what is best for his line manager and the shareholder or what is best for the RAF and the taxpayer? That is the weakness of market testing. I state with great conviction that only the in-house bid enhances the Ministry of Defence's intelligent customer status. I am grateful to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement for his accessibility and his patience in allowing me to bring deputations to him on the matter.
The dark cloud of market testing has hung over RAF Sealand for more than two years. It has dampened spirits and impeded morale. There is good leadership at the base and co-operation from trade unions. With gritted teeth, they have saved the day so far. If the Government want RAF Sealand to remain a world-class outfit which supports the best flyers in the world, they must ensure that the in-house bid wins. If it works, please do not fix it.
I seek the Minister's help with another matter. Raytheon, a United States worldwide company, is located near RAF Sealand. The Raytheon service centre, which will remain after the other jobs are lost, would employ more survivors if the Ministry of Defence were to send its Dominee aircraft—effectively the Hawker jet—to my constituency for servicing. On behalf of my beleaguered constituents, I ask for Ministry of Defence contracts for the servicing of Dominee aircraft. If that were to happen, we could save many jobs and avoid compulsory redundancies.
Secondly, Ministers could assist by asking British Aerospace Airbus, which is recruiting across the runway from Raytheon Jets, to take on as many as possible of those who will soon be made redundant at Raytheon. l ask the Minister to use his undoubted influence in that area.
My third point refers to the future large aircraft. Has the programme moved forward? Has the European staff requirement set firm parameters for the aircraft in terms of size, shape, speed, range and propulsion—presumably turbo props? I believe that it has and I hope that the Minister will confirm that in his winding-up speech. Will the first delivery of the future large aircraft be made in May 2004, with a pre-launch phase from January 1997 to July 1998? I believe that that is so. Some 2,200 members of the airbus work force at Broughton in my constituency want some answers about that project.
When will the letter of intent from the eight future large aircraft nations become operative? It must be soon. What about work share? Will my constituents at Airbus
660
Broughton be asked to build the wings of the aircraft? They build the wings for all the airbus aircraft and they are brilliantly successful. I hope that they will benefit if this project goes forward.
Have the air forces of Europe endorsed the future large aircraft as meeting operational requirements and equalling the capability of the American C17? My constituents remain concerned about budgetary problems in France and Germany regarding the future large aircraft. Perhaps the Euro currency is taking precedence in those two countries—I do not know. However, if France and Germany do not get a move on, the Americans may slip in and offer the Lockheed C17 as an alternative. That would be a terrible blow to the project.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry are using all their diplomatic skills to get France and Germany to make an urgent commitment to that project. Do the Government believe that France and Germany will declare for the future large aircraft at their summit on 8 December? I hope that they will. They have dragged their feet so far and I think that the Americans are watching hungrily for their opportunity. If we went American again after the C120, my constituents would cry treason; they would have no patience with such a decision. My constituents want the British Government and the MOD to back a British, or at least a European, project.
My last words are to the Minister. I ask him to declare tonight, certainly before midnight, that the Government will order 40 to 50 of the FLA.
8.9 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): In the 10 minutes that I have, I had thought to address five defence themes for the next term of our Government. However, we have heard speeches of such importance that I cannot fail to respond to one or two points.
I have every sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) about the Raytheon jets facility. If the 32 Squadron HS125s that are stationed at Northolt in my constituency and have their third-line service elsewhere could be serviced at Hawarden, I should be delighted.
The speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) really brought home to the House the fact that the Labour party is not one party on defence. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are as one on defence, as they are on many things these days, but the Labour party is fundamentally divided within itself on the subject. The idea that the hon. Member for Islington, North and some of his hon. Friends are proposing about the merits of vulnerability is belied by all the experience of the past 20 years—the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets because the Afghans were so weak, the invasion of the Falkland Islands, the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, and the horrors perpetrated in Bosnia by the essentially Serbian-controlled Yugoslav national army—and yet Labour Members enjoin further vulnerability. The human misery that military weakness has caused should surely behove us to defend ourselves adequately.
The moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) brought home to us the reality of the situation of the people of Northern Ireland today. We are grateful to him and proud of the

661
loyal people of Northern Ireland. We also pay a warm tribute of gratitude to the warrant officer who was killed and to the many people who have made the supreme sacrifice in the defence of our country of Ulster.
We must get even further away from the Maginot mentality of static defence, the legacy of the cold war. We have done this to a large extent, but an armoured British division remains stationed in Germany with all the apparatus of a fixed military presence: the married quarters, the schools, the swimming pools, the gardeners, the mess stewards. In all—eliberately excluding the Headquarters Allied Rapid Reaction Corps—he whole apparatus costs the British taxpayer £943 million a year, of which £252 million is paid to locally employed civilians. We should be employing civilians in this country when so many bases are closing and so many facilities are folding.
With the money saved, we should be investing in extra mobility and flexibility, which are what war prevention requires. We have made some good investments: the C-130J, the EH101 medium transport helicopter and the improved Chinook mark 2. I hate to say it to my erstwhile friend— say friend because we came into the House together, although he sits on the opposite side—he hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, but what the Royal Air Force requires is not the future large aircraft, which will cost a great deal to develop, but the C-17— heavy lifter to take a main battle tank over huge ranges so that large loads can be deployed rapidly. I am pleased that the Select Committee, under the stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), is examining the issue of heavy lift.
Good investments are also being made for the Royal Marines: the landing platform docks Albion and Bulwark which are to be constructed, in addition to HMS Ocean with its landing platform for helicopters. Mobility is an important capability and we need to invest more in it.
We also need to invest more in training. I shall mention just one subject—he future of staff and officer cadet training. Most armed forces are investing more and more in training while we are doing the opposite. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will think again on Greenwich. The fact that the joint staff training scheme has not worked gives us an opportunity to go back to this old issue and, surely, locate the tri-service staff college at Greenwich. I would also put a tri-service cadet college in that august setting as a lead-in to the individual service academies.
We also need to make better use of our Reserves, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. I would add just one point about the opportunity afforded by the sponsored Reserve—the idea that contractors who are working for the support of the armed services can be mobilised in uniform in time of emergency or war. I hope, too, that the example set by No. 1 maritime headquarters unit of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—located at RAF Northolt in my constituency—will be better followed. It provides support for the maritime headquarters at Northwood and I hope that it will provide support for the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood also.
My final point concerns procurement. If we are to have such small armed forces, they must be well trained and have an expansion capability with Reserves, but they must
662
also have the very best equipment. This is crucial for flexibility and mobility. I mentioned some of the programmes. We have seen from the Eurofighter episode how bedevilled with politics some of the European programmes can become. In the case of Eurofighter, the problem was the nefarious ways of economic and monetary union and the fact that the Maastricht criteria appear to be more important to the German Parliament than the modernisation of the Luftwaffe and of the three other air forces which require the Eurofighter 2000. It is a frightening prospect, which is why it is so necessary to retain the balance between European procurement and co-operation with the United States. Without that balance, we shall never have a competitive indigenous industry of our own.
I return to the theme that I touched on briefly in a question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State during his opening remarks about the European armaments agency which is to be developed from the Franco-German agency as a quadripartite agency, to which we are supposedly to sign up. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to think carefully. Do we really need another bureaucracy? Co-operation across frontiers should not be driven by officials in Bonn and Brussels.
In any case, are the new officials to be drawn from NATO or the national defence ministries? How are they to co-operate with the conference of national armaments directors within NATO? The latter is supposedly harmonising operational requirements not just for four European members but right across the alliance to secure proper interoperability and the best use of resources. To whom are the officials to be answerable? Are not our American friends correct in assuming that there must at any rate be a predisposition to favour the European product over an American or other purchase?
Ministers must think very carefully. Is the multi-role armoured utility vehicle the right project to get the agency off the ground? We have good vehicle constructors in this country, including GKN, Alvis and Vickers.
I hope that those five points will be useful to the Government in their next term.
8.19 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: This has been an extremely interesting debate. A number of hon. Members started with the point that I intend to make now. It is a matter that is particularly poignant, as I visited Lisburn barracks a couple of weeks ago only to find that a terrible tragedy occurred there just a few days later. It really does bring it firmly home to one, and my heart goes out to Warrant Officer Bradwell's family. It is an appalling tragedy and most regrettable.
I have had contact with people who have been affected by the bombs placed in the north-west of England, in Manchester and Warrington. When it gets that close to home, it makes one think very seriously about the issues involved. The Cheshire Regiment—my county regiment—is currently based in Ballykelly, and I often have discussions with the parents of young men who are part of that regiment and engaged in very important duties on behalf of the nation.
A number of points have been raised, but because of the time I shall have to leave them. I shall, however, praise Ministers on one point and personally thank all the

663
MOD people who were involved this year in the management of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I have found the time that I have spent on the scheme extremely enlightening and would encourage hon. Members who have not had the opportunity of participating to do so. Because of age profiles, few of us will have had the opportunity to serve in the forces. Having been brought up in a military environment, and in later years living in Portsmouth, I thought it about time that I got on the other side of the dockyard fence to find out what was happening in the Navy.
I have been able to identify a number of matters about which the Government should think carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) touched briefly on the unsung work undertaken by the Navy in the anti-drugs war—a real war of enormous proportions. I have seen the scale of the success recently achieved by the West Indies guard ship and the work that is going on in conjunction with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, but it is an area of the Navy's activities that is hardly mentioned outside. If people are looking for ideas about how to promote a positive role for that force today, that is one war in which every family in the land would welcome our participation. I urge that consideration be given to that.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the role of the West Indies guard ship, and I applaud him for raising the matter of drugs, but is he not aware that we already mention it? Every time the West Indies guard ship scores a coup, which is all too regularly, we make it very public and it gets good coverage, but anything that he or any other hon. Member on either side of the House can do to help to get the message across about the vital role that it plays would be hugely welcome.
Mr. Miller: There have to be a few things on which we agree across the Floor of the House, despite some of the rhetoric of the debate. The drugs war is an important war and one in which we must firmly engage.
One area that concerns me—I pressed this point a couple of times yesterday and found a less than satisfactory response—is the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. Given that we are now in an era when countries such as Iran are holding control over SSKs, we really must be much more positive about that part of our flotilla. Frankly, if I had been asked a couple of years ago about the future development of our submarine fleet, I would not, perhaps, have taken the same view as I do now, but when one considers the world ownership of submarines, one sees that that issue needs to be addressed firmly, especially given the comments made by military leaders of some countries who believe that the world is growing as far as their territorial ambitions are concerned, now that they have submarines in their fleet.
One thing that was apparent during every visit I made was morale. Much has been said about morale, and there are areas where improvements are undoubtedly occurring, but in the Navy there is undoubtedly one constant theme coming through the force—that of gapping. When vessels are back in their home port, facilities must be made to enable people not just to take shore leave but to take leave back at their homes with their families. This calls into question the legitimacy of the continued process of civilianisation. I can see that there are arguments in some
664
areas, but the MOD needs to think very carefully about the implications of continued civilianisation for morale. There needs to be a more positive approach to that.
There are logistical problems. There are serious morale problems. There are, for example, attempts to make a number of the bases a little more like home. I was somewhat concerned to discover, not a million miles from your own constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, a McDonald's being built in Devonport. I hope that the MOD will insist at the very least that it serves British beef. Attempts are being made to improve morale, but they do not address the key issue of getting people back to their homes. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
I shall make one blunt criticism about the Secretary of State's speech yesterday. He spent several paragraphs—I have just re-read it in Hansard—attacking the Labour party conference. I thought about that in the context of the very clear and concise speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and the brilliant speech at the Labour party conference by a young mother from Chester who argued the case about the defence of this country in clear and concise terms. If one compares that with the activities of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on defence, where has he been on British Aerospace, Saighton Camp, Sealand, the Army pay office—on all the issues raised by my hon. Friend? That young mother has more knowledge in her little finger about the defence of this country than the hon. Member who represents City of Chester. I really hope that the Government will look more carefully at what is said at the Labour party conference before making such comments.
Last year, I was privileged to be part of a delegation, with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, meeting some folk in NATO. One of the great privileges of that was to be part of the early discussions with NATO about the eradication of mines. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the sterling work that he has put in. Commitments have now been made so that part of NATO's research and development budget will be directed towards the disposal of mines. That is a great credit to the Labour party. I do not think that there is an hon. Member in the House who would deny the unpleasantness of that weapon and the reasons why, in a post-war situation, we have to get them cleared up, particularly in some countries where appalling films are coming out about them. That element of our amendment tonight is particularly important and I hope that the House will take it on board.
There is so much more to say, but in 10 minutes one cannot cover everything. However, I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the observations that I have made, particularly with regard to the armed forces scheme, because they are worth considering.
8.29 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made a thoughtful speech, based on his recent experience of the armed forces, which I followed with keen interest.
Those of us who maintain contact with the armed forces through our constituencies, or perhaps through the Defence Committee or the North Atlantic Assembly, have

665
many people to thank for the time that they commit to briefing us and telling us of their activities. We congratulate them on their efforts. We are well served by capable and determined men and women demonstrating old fashioned qualities of discipline and reliability, every one of them skilled and well trained. They are people of enormous drive with positive attitudes. We expect a great deal of them, but we must be vigilant not to take them for granted, to take advantage of them or to impose on them unacceptable terms and conditions.
The word "overstretch" keeps coming up in defence debates. It is the jargon word for repetitive postings, disruption of family life, insufficient periods between postings to Northern Ireland, increased duty on watch when a ship is in port, or working long hours to keep aircraft in service.
Men and women join the armed forces for a job that is different and challenging. Commanders want it to be just that, and our task as parliamentarians is to back them and give them the resources to make it so.
We are coming out of a period of poor recruitment, which we knew was coming. Many hon. Members will know the acronym MARILYN, standing, scarcely credibly, for manning and recruitment in the lean years of the 90s. We knew that there would be a recruiting problem in the 90s. We must now do all that we can to ensure that recruits come into the armed forces and stay in. We must provide a first-class and stimulating career for young men and women, and a decade or so after they have joined we must provide an attractive continuing career for trained and experienced men and women.
Young men and women may accept anti-social postings, but men and women in their 30s and 40s, when they are trained and particularly valuable and skilful, probably with families, will leave if they find the imposition on them and their families too great. We must therefore provide sport and adventurous training, watch out for the symptoms of overstretch and provide resources to back the commanders.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has just re-entered the Chamber. I listened to his speech with great interest. He is the acceptable face of Labour on the subject of defence and a companionable and popular Member. I listened to him carefully, and he made the ragbag of an amendment tabled by the official Opposition sound as if it refers to a review of overstretch. Of course, it does nothing of the sort. The hon. Gentleman criticised overstretch and then said that there must be, or should be, a review of overstretch.
The amendment says that there must be
"a long-term strategic overview which can only be achieved through the establishment of a strategic defence review",
but we all know that such a review would be a review downwards, not upwards. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he and his hon. Friends know that, if there were a defence review, it would result in a defence reduction rather than an increase. I defy him to deny that.
Dr. Reid: For the hon. Gentleman's elucidation, there are three general elements in any such review. The first concerns commitments to resources, and I encompassed overstretch within that; the second is the interweaving of foreign affairs and defence; the third is the interweaving
666
of trade and industry and defence. Those three elements would form the core of any defence review. With regard to expenditure, we made two things absolutely plain. First, we will spend what is necessary for the defence of our country and, secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads our statement, such a review will not—not—be a cover for cuts.
Mr. Viggers: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I know the Labour party's defence record over the years, and I know the defence record of our proud party over the years. I maintain, and I think that the country believes and knows, that it is the Conservative party which believes fervently in defence and will provide the resources, as it is doing, to maintain proper defences.
In the few remaining moments of my speech, I want to focus on just one area of defence which is dealt with in two thirds of page 91 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates"—medical care. Medical care is a crucial and central part of the teeth of defence, not part of the tail of defence. Primary care is in the front line of defence. One quarter of every army patrol is medically trained, and primary care is the responsibility of the single services, the Army, Navy and Air Force. It is a front-line operation, not a rear echelon one.
We must have quality, which we certainly have, but we should also have the quantity of defence capacity which will enable us to fulfil our responsibility in primary care and in secondary care. I see from the statistics section of the Statement that we have gone from 11 field ambulances and hospitals in 1975 to 12 among the regular forces in 1996, and from 15 to 18 in the Territorial Army in the same period of 21 years. That does not seem to equate to the facts as I understand them, which show that the numbers of hospitals, beds and medical staff in the armed forces have been reduced.
When I and my colleagues on the Defence Committee visit the royal hospital Haslar in my constituency next month, we will look carefully to ensure that we have the number of trained medical personnel available to fulfil the front-line function and the secondary function. We will want to know how many personnel will be available in the regular armed forces and how many will be available in times of emergency in the reserve forces, bearing in mind the reluctance of hospital trusts to encourage reserve commitment and my concern, which remains, that hospitals may be reluctant to appoint people to civilian appointments if they have a reserve commitment, thus weakening the reserve commitment to the medical section of the armed forces.
Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend knows that I have three minutes remaining, whereas he will have some time at the end of the debate.
The second area of medical care is secondary care. I am delighted that, with the choice of the royal hospital Haslar as the tri-service hospital, backed up by Ministry of Defence hospital units at Derriford, Frimley Park and Peterborough, the area of defence training will be at the royal medical defence college and that HMS Dolphin has been identified as a suitable site for that location. HMS Dolphin is opposite the royal naval hospital Haslar and having the secondary care unit there will make it easy to interchange the teaching and the practical roles within the armed forces.

667
I am satisfied with the current shape of the secondary care agency as it is evolving. It is right that we should take account of the fact that changing medical and surgical techniques are leading to shorter hospital stays, that the increased transportation of armed forces personnel means that patients might be brought back to the United Kingdom and NHS hospitals more quickly than in the past, and that the choice of the Gosport area allows a wider range of patients to be seen by armed forces doctors who usually treat fit and young male personnel, whereas in the Gosport-south Hampshire area they have a wide range of patients on whom to practise.
For some 80 years, HMS Dolphin has been the home of the submarine service, and it was a great disappointment when it was decided that the submarine service would leave HMS Dolphin. However, Fort Blockhouse, the home of HMS Dolphin, has served the armed forces and the country for nearly 500 years. I am confident that, as we move on, it will provide an ideal centre for military medical excellence.
8.39 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I should like to touch on two problems: NATO enlargement and the new challenges facing Britain in terms of military procurement.
On NATO enlargement, it is traditional that, after the end of a great war, the loser enters a period of instability and turbulence. That is the condition that Europe now finds itself in. The cold war ended, perhaps, in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall and the great events in central and eastern Europe. We must deal with a Russia that is unstable and giving contradictory signals and extend that area of stability which is the NATO alliance and seek, so far as we can, to influence positively potential regions of turbulence beyond NATO.
We are coming to the point at which the future security architecture of the new Europe is beginning to emerge through the fog. Those outlines were delineated in September in the Stuttgart speech of Secretary Christopher, followed by that of German Foreign Minister Kinkel. Their aim is to try to keep as much movement as possible to preserve flexibility, yet to be sensitive to Russia's problems.
On that architecture, it is now clear that the terms of the first wave of NATO's enlargement will be known in the Brussels summit in December, followed by the meeting in late spring next year. Presumably on or near the 50th anniversary of NATO, in April 1999, that first wave will take effect. We know that the Visegrad countries, with the exception, alas, of Slovakia—because, under Meciar, it has slipped badly from the democratic way—will be among that first wave. We are less certain about whether Slovenia will be there and even less certain about Romania, but the shape of that first group is emerging.
Russia will then have to have its proper interests dealt with. That will mean that its concerns about the boundaries of the new NATO and of the conditions of enlargement will need to be considered sensitively without giving it a veto. That means, it appears, a new charter between NATO and Russia, in which Russia will be given a special status. That raises problems.
There are at the same time a series of regional alliances—not only Visegrad, but the Baltic sea and the Barents sea alliances and a series of positive bilateral
668
treaties that defy what has happened in history. Only last month, we had the Timisoara treaty between Romania and Hungary. Having served in the embassy in Hungary for some time, I understand the historic resonances of the problem over Transylvania. Russia is seeking to build up the Organisation for Co-operation and Security in Europe because of its status in it. There is likely to be a new directorate of the OSCE, which will be determined at the Lisbon summit in December, so the broad lines of that security architecture are looming through the mist.
The problem is those countries that, for a number of reasons, are not privileged to be in the first wave, or perhaps in any wave, of NATO enlargement. In history, they are the countries in the middle. One interesting perspective on European history is that either Russia or Germany is dominant and it is middle Europe where the problems arise, so the question on enlargement that I pose to the Government is: how will we seek to reassure and look after the interests of countries that will not be in the first wave? I think especially of the Baltics. A sensitive response is needed.
How much thought is being given, for example, to twinning NATO countries with the Baltics and others—the Bulgarians and Romanians? What effort will the Ministry of Defence make to go into those countries to assist in training? What will be the shape of a super-partnership for peace or other arrangements that will be reached? In terms of the Baltic countries, will we seek a new regional security structure and try to subcontract much of the work there to the Scandinavians, who have a geographic and historic relationship with the Baltics? We cannot leave that unclear. There must be movement to those countries that would otherwise feel isolated and neglected.
On the new challenges on procurement, my starting point is that the current problems were foreseeable, but were not foreseen by the Government. Historians will see that we have missed a series of opportunities in the real procurement challenges. Way back in 1994, Ernst and Young produced an excellent report that concluded that, increasingly, there were two axes in the west in military production: the United States and Europe. We have to make a choice. We must avoid fortress Europe, but unless and until European nations begin to pool and merge their resources, we shall opt out of the race to be prime contractors for the major projects.
Market forces will not do it. Even since that Ernst and Young report, which was based on pooling data of industrial concerns for a year or two before, there have been even greater signs of challenge from the United States—not just the mega-mergers, the Lockheed Martins and so on, but evidence of increasing United States pressure on third countries such as those in the Gulf. We see it now in respect of the fighter aircraft in central Europe, and on Hungary, Slovenia and Austria. There is pressure to take United States products rather than Europe's.
We have a choice. Do we seek simply to keep our options open? Do we seek to forget the challenges? Or do we seek to build a European defence entity that is not anti-America, but recognises that, if we do not, we shall be swamped by the size of the United States industrial machine? There are signs that we have more obstacle than most countries.

669
We accepted the value-for-money concepts of Sir Peter Levene, but they could be defined so narrowly in buying off the shelf—the C130-Js—that we would effectively avoid wider industrial and European perspectives. There have been some unfortunate remarks from Sir Peter Levene's successor about there being no polarisation between the United States and Europe. They appeared in the Financial Times survey on procurement in August. I hope that he was misquoted.
I must mention the signal that the Secretary of State for Defence gave in his speech last year, and the Government's posturing on Europe which gives a clear signal to our European partners that we are not serious about Europe. That is part of the internal squabble in the governing party which, alas, has unfortunate repercussions for Britain.
There are, however, some positive signs—not only the comparison between this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and last year's and the Government's response to the excellent first joint report of the two Select Committees, but various things that have been said. Even the Secretary of State, with his known anti-European prejudices, is being dragged kicking and screaming to support Britain's interests.
I shall end just with these questions in relation to procurement. I accept that there were wrong signals, for example, on Apache and on the C130-J, but the batch of decisions on procurement in July were positive. The response—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr.Bruce George.
8.49 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I suppose I should be grateful that the Conservative party has run out of speakers, or some of my colleagues and I would not have been called. If we wait long enough, the time will come when Conservative Members keep out of the way. After giving a rhetorical flourish of criticism of the Labour party, hon. Members who have come to support their own Government have settled down to spend their time politely criticising them. Our debate on the defence estimates—the last before the general election—will give us, and more importantly the public, a chance to evaluate the truth of the Government's portrayal of themselves as a brilliant Government who are pro-defence and their portrayal of Labour as a party that comprises a bunch of pacifists who are unfit for office.
Towards the end of his speech, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement listed a number of procurement items that are to be ordered. In doing so he seemed to display the philosophy that the threat of a public hanging concentrates the mind. The imminent election has made the Government seek to give the impression that they have been funding defence projects almost ad infinitum, but we know that that is not so.
Any Opposition who neglect defence suffer the consequences: the Labour party deservedly suffered the consequences in 1983 and, to a lesser extent, in 1987. But Governments who neglect defence do so, not just at their own peril, but, more importantly, to the detriment of national security. I fear that the depth and nature of the defence cuts over the past 10 or 15 years have been to the detriment of national security.
670
I wonder whether the Government will attack the Labour party as they have done in previous elections. The Conservative party may be called the stupid party, but it is not that stupid. Its members must realise that they are on dangerous ground in thinking that the Labour party is the same Labour party as they faced in those halcyon days when the Tory party was identified with defence. If the Conservative party tries to make the defence issue one of confidence, it will suffer the consequences—I hope that it takes that course. I do not think that it will have the opportunity, as it had in 1987, of commissioning posters of soldiers holding their hands in the air in surrender. A consensus is emerging that the Labour party has become much better, while the Government have become much worse.
On the available evidence, with defence expenditure at an historic low and falling, it would be as sane for the Conservative party to proclaim itself the party of defence as it would be for it to proclaim itself the party of law and order when crime levels are at an historic high and rising. Labour is not the party of the 1980s. That period was an abberation for us in the same way—although it was less damning to the country—as the little holiday from realism undertaken by the Conservative party in the 1930s, which had disastrous consequences for this country and mankind. If the Conservative party wants to delve into history, I shall be delighted to join in an historical debate on defence.
The Labour party with which the Conservatives are now dealing is in the tradition not of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but of the party that joined the coalition in the first world war and recognised the rise of Hitler long before the Government of Baldwin and Chamberlain. The Opposition brought down the Government who had brought us to the verge of military catastrophe while the majority of Government Members sat on their hands or supported the Government. It is the party of Wilson and Callaghan, who sustained the nuclear deterrent and maintained defence expenditure at a higher level than Tory Governments who followed them.
The Labour party has little to be anxious about. We have learnt the lessons of the 1980s. If the subject is to be raised in the election, the Labour party should do more than hope that it does not become an issue; it should go on the attack. The Tories will say that defence expenditure has slipped a little. Let us remind the public that, when Labour left office in 1979, the budget for that year was 4.9 per cent.—the average was 4.55 per cent. for that period of office. The budget has now declined to 3 per cent. and will probably fall to 2.6 per cent.
Therefore, the chasm that existed between this country's defence expenditure under the last Labour Government and the Thatcher Government and the defence expenditure of our European partners has, under this Government, narrowed to a fraction. Opposition Members who want to see defence expenditure fall to the level of our European and NATO partners should perhaps support the Government in the Lobby this evening, because the Tory Government have narrowed the gap far more than a Labour party conference would wish to have done.
The Select Committee on Defence stated that the defence budget had been trimmed consistently since the inception of "Options for Change". The Select Committee has frequently stated that it is unhappy with the process of cut upon cut. It said that there had been no period of

671
financial calm—just the opposite. No plan seems to survive the next public expenditure round. Every activity is reviewed and revised again.
The priority in the public expenditure survey 1994 must surely be, as never before, to leave defence expenditure well alone. That did not happen, to such an extent that our Committee has given a warning that, unless the Government can come up with something serious and state that there will be no further cuts of any kind, it cannot recommend the defence estimates to the House. The absence of Conservative Members on the Committee suggests that they are going to sit on their hands or endorse the Government's defence policy despite the commitment given.
I was recently in Portsmouth, which houses the little that is left of our Navy. I seem to see more boats marked Brittany Ferries than representing the Royal Navy—so many ships were available for sale. I spoke to people in the merchant marine—there is not much of that left. The Government's record on the Navy is appalling.
The Defence Committee has been told that things will be all right on the night and that perhaps it was overstating the case on overstretch. But we were right and the Government were wrong. We have received pompous lectures on Gulf war syndrome. I suspect that, the next time we meet, any Government representative will show slightly more humility.
As for procurement, we are all aware of a number of items that have arrived late, have not arrived at all or have arrived greatly over cost. Phoenix, endorsed by the Government, represents the Government: its life span is about the same. The Government first began to think about something such as Phoenix in 1980; we shall get it in about the year 2000. Phoenix and the Government are both much maligned, and deservedly so. They both crash frequently—the difference is that the Government rescued Phoenix, but the electorate will not rescue the Government.
The idea of the Government wrapping themselves in the flag and then giving over Ministry of Defence housing to a Japanese consortium is bizarre. There are some charitable aspects, and I suppose we must forgive and forget. The consortium representing the successful bidders contains one Scottish member, so we may have a Robert the Bruce close or a William Wallace street. We must forgive the Americans, so perhaps we shall have a street named after John Paul Jones, who successfully defeated the British Navy. But I resent the idea of an Admiral Togo or an Admiral Yamamoto avenue. If we are to give over things to those countries that fought us in the war, perhaps we should have a consortium of Zulus, Sikhs and Sudanese to complete the farce.
This evening I should have been at the annual conference of the Defence Police Federation. I am afraid that the Government's vendetta against it and the Ministry of Defence police continues.
On a more positive note, rather than let the GKN Warrior production line fade away, I ask the Government to hear the pleas that have been made by Members on both sides of the House and seriously consider the offer made on the GKN Warrior mortar proposal. If the Government want the production line to continue, they must take positive action.
In its conclusions, the Defence Committee said:
672
"We cannot recommend the 1996 Statement on the Defence Estimates to the House unless Ministers make clear in the debate that this year's statement will not again be undermined by further defence cuts in the 1996 Budget or by any other means.
That assurance has not been given. If Conservative Members are not prepared to give the Government the kick up the backside that they deserve, I hope that, at least privately, they have the courage to say that enough is enough, the cuts have gone too far and it is about time that we started building up our defences and not destroying them.
8.59 pm
Mr. John Hutton: I fully endorse the tributes that have been paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the professionalism and dedication of the British armed forces. Service in the armed forces is public service of the highest order and we are lucky to have so many talented and patriotic men and women who are prepared to serve the United Kingdom in such a way. I especially praise the efforts of British service personnel in Bosnia who have made such a major contribution to the NATO-led peace implementation force.
I am sad that the Secretary of State for Defence chose to begin his speech yesterday by saying that Labour Members do not care about the defence of this country. That is not true. Patriotism is not the preserve of only one party in this House, and Labour Members are just as concerned as anyone else to ensure that this country is properly defended. We have always made it clear that, under a Labour Government, that will continue to be so. It appears that the Secretary of State has not learnt the necessary lessons after his abysmal speech at last year's Conservative party conference.
It is worth looking behind Ministers' bogus rhetoric to study their record in recent years of managing the defence budget. The Government have presided over massive reductions in spending that have often appeared random and unintelligible and have drawn criticism from the Select Committee on Defence, former service chiefs and the defence industry itself, which often has to pick up the pieces resulting from the delays and confusion that have come to characterise the Government's procurement policies about which I shall say a little more later.
I am relieved that Ministers are now urgently looking into the exposure of British forces personnel to organophosphate chemicals during the Gulf war. I remind the Minister about one of my constituents, Corporal Mervyn Gray, about whom I wrote to him on 10 June. Corporal Gray was clearly exposed to massive amounts of organophosphates during the Gulf war but, despite the Government's announcement of an emergency review of such cases, he has not yet had any new or fresh contact with the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Minister has not forgotten him and will look into his case at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. Soames: Has Corporal Gray been to the medical assessment panel?
Mr. Hutton: Yes, he has.
I shall confine the rest of my remarks to naval defence procurement and Government policy towards the defence industry as a whole. The defence industry is unique in

673
many ways. The Government are its only UK customer and have the power to determine in which international markets the industry can operate. That relationship means that the Government have a special responsibility towards defence companies which does not exist anywhere else in British industry. Sadly, that responsibility has not always been properly discharged. That has been especially true in relation to the rundown of defence spending in recent years.
Key procurement contracts are often the subject of chronic delays, with deadlines constantly being allowed to slip further and further behind schedule. That almost always results in further job losses in defence companies, as has sadly been so in my constituency at VSEL. A classic example of such delay was in relation to the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarine contract. Work was due to start in 1994. The contract has not yet been let. When will it be let? A gap of at least three years has opened up. It is worth reminding ourselves that the last contract for an SSN was placed in 1986. That 11-year gap is unprecedented in the Royal Navy's history.
The White Paper makes extensive reference to the Royal Navy's nuclear submarine capability and the Government's desire to maintain it. It is hard to see such a desire reflected in the Government's handling of such a vital contract. What will be the operational consequences for the Royal Navy of that delay? There have also been extensive delays in finally placing the contract for the landing platform dock replacements. I am delighted that that contract has been placed and that VSEL in my constituency won it, but it, too, has been characterised by serious delay.
The contract for two new auxiliary oilers will also be very important to my constituency. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that contract will not be subject to similar delays, and that orders will be placed on schedule by the end of the year.
I share the hope of my hon. Friends the Members for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) that we should all be aiming to develop a new national consensus on Britain's defence policy for the new millennium. Like them, I suspect that Tory Ministers are not up to that task.
9.3 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: I shall keep my remarks extremely brief, because another hon. Member wishes to speak. I am sure that it will not go unnoticed outside the House that there have been more Labour Members than Conservative Members wishing to speak in this debate.
I want to make two simple points. I ask the Minister to deal in summing up with the important matter of service men who suffered from exposure to asbestos from the 1940s through to the 1960s. I repeat the requests that I put to him last year. First, he should find out how many such men are suffering—he can get that information from the War Pensions Agency. Secondly, what would be the cost of compensating those men at the same rate as dockyard workers are compensated? Thirdly, will he seriously consider some ex gratia payment for those men? If we ignore the dwindling number of men who are now dying, we shall continue a considerable injustice to men who are suffering seriously in the autumn of their lives.
674
Following the massive job losses in the dockyards, certain questions remain in respect of the privatisation of Devonport dockyard. We are, quite properly, asking those questions. First, should a dockyard that is so central to our strategic defence interests be in private hands? Secondly, could a privatised dockyard fall into undesirable or even hostile hands? Thirdly, can a dockyard working as a private company, with all the constraints that that entails, respond to sudden demands such as the Falklands or the Gulf war? I recall the response given to me two years ago by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who was then the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. He said then that that was impossible.
The answer to my first question is largely dependent on the answer to the other two. Yesterday, the Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) what is stability. I can tell him now what stability means to something such as our dockyard. It is a period of knowing where it is going; it is a period of knowing that there is a world of certainty; and it is when workers feel valued because there is a period in which they know they will have a job. Most of all, if the sale of Devonport dockyard goes through, it is a period in which the management and the workers of the company together can plan for the future not only of the dockyard, but of jobs in Plymouth.
I ask the Minister to address those important and essential matters. In particular, will he let us know when the negotiations for the D154 will be complete, so that the sale can be completed and we can move into a world of genuine stability?
I was delighted to hear the speeches made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and other Members on the Labour Front Bench. They were excellent speeches and confirm that Labour is now the party of defence—the party that will ensure that our future defence is secure.
9.7 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I shall be brief and focus on a single issue: the future of the incomparable buildings in Greenwich which currently house the Royal Naval College.
In previous debates on defence estimates and the armed forces, we have highlighted the way in which the Government took an unwise decision to close the Greenwich complex and move the tri-service college elsewhere on the basis of dubious estimates and suspect figures that suggested that the costs of relocating to Camberley would be less than those of retaining a college in Greenwich. It has now become clear that those estimates and the assumptions behind them were false.
The Government's proposal for the relocation of the tri-service college is now unravelling. Staff and those attending the college now face the prospect of moving into temporary accommodation at Bracknell with a huge question mark hanging over their future at Camberley or possibly at another site. That cannot be the right way to handle the training of our senior staff in all services. The question must now be addressed whether we should have a further look at whether Greenwich might provide the appropriate location for all or part of the tri-service college.
The Greenwich complex is an incomparable set of buildings. Any other country that possessed such rich architecture with such important historic associations

675
would leap at the prospect of using them as a focus for service training. Few other countries would treat such a priceless piece of heritage with the curiously cavalier attitude displayed by the Government.
This evening, hon. Members on both sides have asked whether Greenwich could not or should not perform the function that it has performed exceptionally well for the past 120 years—that of a service college providing high-quality training for senior staff in the armed forces in an incomparable setting.
The issue must be reopened, and there is good logic behind re-examining whether Greenwich is not the appropriate site for the location of the tri-service college. I hope that if the Government do not have the decency to accept the fact that they have disgracefully mishandled this issue in the past, the incoming Government, next May, will re-examine the issue to determine whether we can establish a sensible, proper basis for service training in the wonderful buildings at Greenwich.
9.9 pm
Mr. Paul Murphy: First, I should like to say how impressed I and other Opposition Members have been during the past two days with the robust and informed debate on the state of our defences. I am thinking, for example, of the speech—made from a constituency point of view—by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), and to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who dealt with a number of issues. What most interested me and other Opposition Members, however, were the references to consensus during the past two days, and the somewhat dramatic reaction of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the question whether there should be a consensus on defence matters.
There is a case for consensus on the major principles of how we defend our nation, but that does not affect how the Opposition must criticise the Government in their management of our defence. The Minister will recall that he and I led in Committee for our parties on the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Throughout that period, there was no question but that there was general agreement on the major principles that lay behind the Act.
That is a good example of consensus, as are the comments that have been made during the past two days about our armed forces, which undertake a huge variety of tasks at home and abroad. Opposition Members pay tribute to the men and women in our three armed forces, wherever they serve—in Britain and Northern Ireland or abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and the hon. Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) spoke of the new challenges now facing our defence forces. There are challenges in Northern Ireland, which has experienced the most tragic consequences in the past few weeks. There are challenges of the new weapons of mass destruction—which are still held worldwide, sometimes in the hands of unstable dictatorships.
We face the challenge of ethnic nationalism and political and religious extremism, such as we have witnessed in Afghanistan in the past month. There is the challenge of increasing crime and drug trafficking, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for
676
Ellesmere Port. There are challenges in a world in which, of 82 major conflicts between 1989 and 1992, all but three were civil wars.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) spoke about the enlargement of NATO. I was in Poland last week, and that country, among others, is very anxious to join NATO. We must, however, balance that with parallel agreements with Russia, which of course is still a major player in defence.
All these matters reflect the Labour party's view on what our policy should be on defence. My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned those important matters. The Labour party believes that we should play our role as members of the Security Council of the United Nations and of NATO in safeguarding the lives of many thousands of people across the world.
Two weeks ago, the Labour party conference once again emphasised Labour's commitment to the strong defence of our nation. The same conference committed Labour to working towards a nuclear-free world, but by a process of multilateral disarmament. We also realised that we need to keep our nuclear deterrent until multilateral agreements abolish the need for nations to keep weapons of mass destruction.
Although my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) hold their views with deep sincerity, those views do not represent the policy of the British Labour party. That policy was encapsulated in Blackpool two weeks ago in a conference resolution which clearly said that we are committed to keeping Trident until multilateral negotiations get rid of nuclear weapons from our planet.
The Secretary of State told his party conference—he repeated this yesterday—that Labour left wingers demanded the abolition of the nuclear deterrent and a drastic reduction in defence spending. He went on:
"The Labour leadership typically responds by pandering to them."
I do not know whom he means by "the Labour leadership" in that respect. It is not the leader of the Labour party, it is not the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, it is not the shadow Cabinet, it is not the majority of members of the parliamentary party, and it certainly is not the Labour party conference. It is important to put on record the fact that the Labour party is as committed to the defence of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as the Conservatives are, if not more so.
All the great changes referred to by me and others show the need for the proper strategic defence review referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) yesterday and by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North this afternoon. On being elected to office next year, we shall undertake such a review, which we hope will take no more than six months.
Why should our country be any different from any other country in the western world since the end of the cold war? We need a defence review to ensure that we match our foreign affairs needs, our trade and industry needs and our defence needs. In a recent Lords debate on the defence estimates, Field Marshal Lord Bramall said that, were Labour's defence review to happen—I assure the House that it will—it would have to consider foreign policy and trade policy in conjunction with defence policy.

677
I also want to make it abundantly clear that the review will provide the resources necessary for the proper defence of this country. No matter what the hon. Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have said, it will not be a device for making defence cuts, because it will be led by defence needs, not by the Treasury.
Why do we say that? Because the Government have done precisely the opposite during the past five years. Their problem is the way in which they have handled the inevitable changes. The cuts have been dictated not by the Ministry of Defence, but by the Treasury. Change has been incompetently managed, there has been no strategic rationale, and the Government have even managed to lose their picture collections. The years of change -have been dominated by waste and inefficiency, by cost overruns and by a damaging gap between resources and commitments.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who is not here, made a good speech, in part. The bits which did not come from a Conservative central office briefing were sensible. Like other hon. Members on both sides, she referred to the overstretch of our armed forces.
In yesterday's debate, interestingly, the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) quoted what appeared to be a Conservative party document, which said:
"Only the Conservatives can offer a period of stability both in terms of size and funding of the Armed Forces."
That, I suppose, is why, over the past six years, the Army has been reduced by 27 per cent., the RAF by 42 per cent. and the Royal Navy by 30 per cent., so that, at the beginning of the new millennium, our total armed forces will consist of about 210,000 men and women. The Army is now 4,000 under strength, and only seven of the 54 regiments and corps are up to strength.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, who is here now, made a good speech yesterday. The Select Committee report says that soldiers are borrowed from other units, leaving them
"depleted and less able to carry out their full training schedule."
On the RAF, the report says:
"We conclude that at the present time the RAF is just about meeting its commitments while going through a period of considerable change."
Today, the United States marine corps has more men than the British Army, more aircraft carriers than the Royal Navy and more aircraft than the RAF. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred to a number of interesting matters regarding the Navy. We are told by the Government that there are 35 frigates and destroyers, but that only 27 of them are operational. That figure compares with 69 in 1985.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South also mentioned the Merchant Navy. Some 92 per cent. of trade to this country comes by sea. While our merchant fleet has gone into sharp decline, the ships that move our troops and equipment to Bosnia and elsewhere have come from Germany, Poland, Malta and Ukraine.
The Minister knows that a ship used in Operation Purple Star—an operation that he applauded, as we all did, some months ago—from Ukraine was impounded by
678
American customs because it was unsafe. I have nothing against Ukrainians, but we must talk about their ships. Very often the Government are obsessed with price and do not consider reliability and quality. That is a theme to which I shall return.
Is it any wonder that the morale of our forces has been affected? In Bosnia—where we all applaud the work of our men and women—our troops have had their overseas allowances cut, while all other nations have offered bonuses and special compensation. For example, a British private soldier based in Germany who goes to former Yugoslavia loses £1,239 a year, while a German soldier gains £21,470 a year, tax-free.
There is a need for high motivation among members of our armed forces. They are men and women who have to put their lives on the line, and are not just civilians in uniform. When talking about the defence industry yesterday, the Secretary of State said that no employer offers jobs for life. But no other job involves sacrificing one's life for one's country. My fear is that the perception referred to by the Under-Secretary in another place—that the armed forces is an "industry in decline" with redundancies and uncertainty—has affected recruitment.
The hon. Member for Gosport referred to recruitment problems. In 1995–96, only 11,000 men and women were recruited to the Army, when 15,000 were required. The problem was that the Ministry of Defence pruned the intake of school leavers far too severely. There is no point in having a raft of sergeant-majors with no one to command, and that is what happened.
What on earth happened to the Bett report? The hon. Member for Canterbury and others have referred to the report, which was much trumpeted, cost a lot of money and made 150 recommendations. The Government accepted one that referred to four or five senior ranks. However, the Secretary of State—who had told the House that he and his Ministers would properly consider the report before the recess—said in a written answer on 24 July that more work was required on the detailed options, and added:
"It is likely that those will be set out in a report later this year which would provide the basis for an information exercise within the forces".—[Official Report, 24 July 1996: Vol. 282, c. 426.]
Well, that is the end of that. The Bett report has been shelved—or, in the words of the hon. Member for Canterbury, "buried". There is not much difference, but what a waste of time and money over all these years.
I and my party believe that the Government have gone over the top in chapter six of the defence estimates document, which looks like a business manual. It talks about business plans, glossy charters and the bottom line—all that stuff. There is nothing wrong with being businesslike, and everyone agrees that there is always room for more efficiency and cost-effectiveness. But our armed forces are not private companies. They are not businesses. The Falklands war was not a business venture. Saddam Hussein was not a business competitor—he was an evil and determined enemy. That is what our forces are about—fighting wars and defending this country.
The contractorisation that goes with all this is most obvious in the Royal Air Force. We have witnessed the disaster of RAF St. Athan. We do not know how much money was wasted there—tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of pounds. The Government are not prepared to tell us what went wrong. This afternoon, the Minister

679
of State for Defence Procurement said that he was in favour of "competitive rigour". I wish that he would be more rigorous about finding out about what happened at RAF St. Athan, and would tell the House how much it has cost the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), as always, raised the subject of the future of RAF Sealand in north Wales, where 1,300 aircraft technicians and 300 service personnel find their jobs are at risk because of the Government's doctrinaire insistence on market testing, even though RAF Sealand has consistently proved to be highly efficient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) referred to the royal dockyards. I was in Devonport recently, and in Rosyth some months ago. Without question, the people who work in those dockyards want a period of stability, but have not been granted one. There has been delay after delay, postponed announcement after postponed announcement. I hope that tonight the Minister of State will be able to put our minds at rest in that respect.
This debate is essentially about the defence estimates, but it is not long until the Budget. We are told that the Treasury may intend to cut £400 million from the defence budget. That would certainly be in line with the indiscriminate cuts of recent years—and with the recent scandal of the sale of the married quarters.
The hon. Member for Canterbury said that service families were rightly worried about increases in their rents, and about their security of tenure. In Colchester alone, there is a 50 per cent. turnover in the married quarters; roughly 10 families a day move. We understand that the Ministry is giving no guarantees to service families about where they will live after the developers take over.
During the Lords debate on these estimates, one peer said:
"A deal which nets the Treasury some £1.5 billion and returns to the military only £l00 million to £200 million is not necessarily very attractive. Apart from that, I believe that the decision may be fundamentally flawed in purely commercial, not military, terms."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 12 July 1996; Vol.574, c.569.]
That was said by a peer who voted for the Government. The truth, of course, came in the answer to the debate by the Under-Secretary, when he said:
"It would be idle to pretend that such a sum as we expect to raise would not be significant to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor as he shapes his Budget plans."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1996; Vol.574, c.594.]
There we have it. The whole episode of the sale of the married quarters was not about improving the lot of our armed forces or their dependants; it was about getting more money for the Budget before a general election.
The Government deny that defence decisions are Treasury led. In last year's statement on the defence estimates they talked about spending stability, yet between 1995 and 1998 nearly £700 million will be cut from the defence budget. In 1995–96, there has been, we are told, a £200 million underspend, which the Government described to the Select Committee as deferred payment for equipment and supplies. We know what that means: the Labour Government will have to pay next year. That, among other reasons, is why the Select Committee refused to recommend these estimates to the House of Commons. We entirely go along with the Select Committee in that.
680
Why on earth should we perpetuate the myth that the Conservatives are to be trusted with our nation's defences? They have reduced our forces to an all-time low. They have failed to match resources to commitments. They have wasted millions of pounds by their incompetence and bungling. They have betrayed service families in the married quarters affair, and yesterday they admitted that the House had been misled over the scandal of Gulf war syndrome.
Our armed forces have nothing to thank this Government for. The sooner the Government go, the better it will be—not just for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, but for the whole country.
9.29 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): It is my great privilege to close this important annual debate on the defence White Paper. Over the past two days, we have heard some perceptive and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I shall attempt to cover some of the points raised.
Luckily, I do not have to pass judgment on the speech by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) last night, whose performance, as always, was so reminiscent, to those of us who love small, cuddly animals, of Basil Brush on amphetamines. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made, as he always does, a good and interesting speech, although most Conservative Members will have found it impossible to agree with almost any part of it; nevertheless, he had plainly gone to much trouble to present his case. I shall, of course, write to those hon. Members who raised questions. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will deal by correspondence with those questions that involved defence procurement, and any points that I miss tonight will be dealt with later.
The use of organophosphate pesticides in the Gulf has been raised by a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who served in the Gulf and made an effective and well-informed speech, and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton).
It has become clear, as the House now knows, that organophosphate insecticides were used more widely in the Gulf than we had been led to believe. I regret that the information given to the Defence Select Committee and to other hon. Members in the past few years has proved to be incorrect. The answers, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear last night, were given by Ministers in good faith, based on advice at the time. However, I fully accept that my Department should have known the correct position earlier, and I wish to stress to the House the great importance that I personally have always attached to the resolution of that complicated and difficult question and our determination to get to the bottom of it.
Our first concern is and must be the health and well-being of our service personnel who served in the Gulf. The use of OP pesticides may be a pointer to why some Gulf veterans are ill. We have already set about re-examining the medical records of all those who have attended the medical assessment process. The hon.

681
Member for Barrow and Furness mentioned the case of a specific soldier. I do not recall that case individually, but if the soldier has been through the medical assessment process and feels that he is still not being properly cared for, the hon. Gentleman must let me have the details at once.
I reiterate that we are determined to get to the bottom of the matter. We have commissioned a comprehensive investigation into the use of OP insecticides during the Gulf war and it will look urgently, and in the greatest detail, at the exact circumstances in which OP pesticides were used and the extent of their use. I shall report further to the House when that work is complete.
We continue to retain an open mind on the possibility of existence or otherwise of a specific Gulf war syndrome. It is clear that some veterans are ill, although I am encouraged by the story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby of his former comrade who was so ill and has been so well looked after. That is the experience of all those who have been through the service medical programme. We are anxious to find out whether the health of any of our Gulf war veterans has been affected by their service in the Gulf and the use of OP pesticides may be a factor that has affected a few veterans.
The House will be aware that we have, throughout our work on those health issues, been guided by the best medical advice available in the land. Hon. Members will recall that we asked the Royal College of Physicians to endorse the methodology of the medical assessment programme in July 1995. It approved our programme of work, but it recommended that we seek the advice of the Medical Research Council on a further detailed programme of research. The MRC has been given the latest information so that it can factor that in as it decides on a further programme of research into Gulf health issues. It has said that it will take the findings fully into account and that it remains on course to make its final recommendations to us on a programme of research to be announced next month.
The House will also wish to be reassured that we are in close touch with the United States authorities. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to his opposite number in the United States—US forces made wide use of pesticides, including organophosphates, during the Gulf war—about their programme of research into Gulf health issues. I assure the House that we shall take full account of any research that they have done on OP pesticides.
Let me make it clear that the Government are fully and wholly committed, as we must be, to the health of our service men and women. We fully understand the concerns and anxieties of those who are ill and their families, and we are determined to get to the root of this difficult and extremely complex question. The information on the use of OP pesticides is a new factor and may be a pointer. But I give you my personal assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we shall find out whatever there is to discover.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reported to the House on IFOR's achievements and the prospects for a lasting peace in the wake of the election. The standard of contributions to our debate, including those from hon. Members who visited Bosnia with the
682
Defence Select Committee earlier this year, has demonstrated the concern that the House feels for the future of that troubled land and the pride that we all share in the contribution that has been made by the British forces. I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and many others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), who has been an immensely assiduous Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. He has been to Bosnia on many occasions with his Committee and has returned each time with a high opinion of the work and efforts of our troops.
In July, I was delighted to have an opportunity to return to Bosnia to visit the UK units serving with IFOR. Like everyone else who has been there, I was truly impressed by the exceptional work that they have done. I was also impressed by the civilians involved in the outstandingly successful aid programme, which deserves great credit. I visited troops throughout the British-led multinational Division South-West, and it was clear that our people's firm, no-nonsense and thoroughly professional approach has gained the respect of all the parties and ensured their broad compliance with the terms of the peace agreement. From the busy divisional headquarters in Banja Luka to the small and sometimes extremely exposed detachments in isolated areas manned by young officers and very few men, all our people are making a remarkable contribution to the great success of IFOR's mission and all that it means for the future of NATO and events to come.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the importance of projects being undertaken in conjunction with the Overseas Development Agency. That work has been instrumental in sustaining and nurturing the peace, and has been a feature of the UK's contribution since the earliest days of UNPROFOR. Working with local people, British engineers and ODA staff are whole-heartedly helping them to rebuild their lives and communities. There has been wonderful co-operation between the Army and the ODA and much good has come of it. In that respect we have learnt many lessons for the future, which we shall apply to future operations. It is a pity that people outside do not realise the full extent of Britain's contribution to the aid programme and the remarkable way in which the ODA and the military have worked together.
I have time, alas, to dwell on but one small example among many. I visited a tiny hamlet called Jezero, in an area totally and utterly devastated during the conflict. A tiny health clinic there has been completely rebuilt by British engineers and the ODA. The clinic's one doctor and two nurses have been brought back and have been providing medical services to the 500 people who have now crept back into the area. That reconstruction effort, of which the clinic is but one tiny piece, encourages still more people to return to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives and broken homes. The House should be aware also of the commitment that Baroness Chalker has made to the work in Bosnia, for which she deserves great credit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), in an extremely interesting and thoughtful speech-about 85 per cent. of which I agreed with whole—heartedly, which is about 60 per cent. more than usual—and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North said that it was too early to say what international effort would be required after the end of the IFOR mandate in

683
December. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, it would be premature to take decisions today about a possible follow-on force to IFOR. However, it is clear that, if a continuing military presence were required in 1997, we would expect it to be NATO-led and that the United Kingdom would play its part alongside its allies. The House will be aware that contingency planning has been set in hand by NATO's military authorities and that this country is playing a full role. That will allow us to make properly informed decisions when the time comes.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will recall that, in confirming that the United Kingdom would participate in such a follow-on force, his right hon. Friend added the rider that he thought that it was important for the United States to be part of such a force. Will the Minister confirm that the Government believe that the United States should contribute to that follow-on force in the form of forces on the ground rather than in any other way?
Mr. Soames: Yes, and every other member of NATO expects that to be the case.
Before I say anything about Northern Ireland—I lump together the comments of all hon. Members on that subject—I offer my deepest sympathy to Warrant Officer Bradwell's grieving family and to the other victims of the IRA's despicable attack on Thiepval barracks last week. Artificer Sergeant Major Bradwell was a first-class and highly skilled non-commissioned officer, in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. He was simply doing his duty and his murder serves as a grim and tragic reminder of the risks faced by our service personnel every day.
I have been lucky enough to visit Northern Ireland many times as Minister of State. It is indeed the front line of the British armed forces' fight against a vicious and brutal terrorism. I never fail to be truly impressed by our soldiers' calm determination and steadiness—qualities that they have displayed in Northern Ireland for more than 27 years with great, and often heroic, distinction. I know that the House has particular admiration for the remarkable men of the home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, whose unique commitment deserves the nation's unqualified respect.
Those men will not be daunted by last week's bombings; nor will anyone else serving in Northern Ireland, or anyone in Britain. It will stiffen their absolute resolve to combat terrorism in the Province until it ceases to be a blight on the lives of the people who live there and who want peace very much. The IRA is making yet another grotesque miscalculation if it believes that those wicked acts of violence will bend the will of a Conservative Government.
In our debate over the past two days, much has been said about the way in which our defence and security policies have a global outlook. However, we sometimes pay less attention to what that means in practice for our service men and women. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) enjoyed his time on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have enjoyed it and have seen at first hand what the massive range of
684
deployments means for our armed forces. Rather than the crash and thunder that issue from the Dispatch Box in a set-piece debate such as this, we can learn about the ordinary, everyday lives of service men and women as they go throughout the world.
All around the world—not just in Bosnia and the middle east or the places that we hear about every day—Britain's armed forces are engaged in a range of operational and training deployments. I think it is important to highlight the extraordinary scope of our commitments and responsibilities and the remarkable way in which they are carried out. Tonight, 51 of the Queen's ships, together with six Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, are deployed to every corner of the globe, from the south Atlantic to Scandinavia, and from the Caribbean to Hong Kong.
HMS Edinburgh, a type 42 destroyer, with RFA Bayleaf in support, is in the Gulf on the Armilla patrol. After 17 years of providing reassurance to British shipping and playing a unique role in enhancing the security of our many friends in the Gulf, the Armilla patrol remains vital to the preservation of British interests in an area where we continue to maintain extremely important commercial, political and military relationships. No doubt all that would be reviewed in the Labour party's defence review, should it ever win a general election.
The type 42 destroyer HMS Exeter is in the south China sea, an area whose importance my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted yesterday. HMS Lancaster, a type 23 frigate, is patrolling the Falkland Islands. That is a potent symbol of our firm commitment to our dependencies in the south Atlantic. Her sister ship. HMS Argyll, is in the Caribbean, where among other things she plays a vital role in the international fight against drug trafficking in the region. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston stressed the vital role of the West Indian guard ship in preventing drug smuggling and how much we wish that a wider public knew of the success of these missions.
HMS Nottingham, a type 42 destroyer, is assigned to NATO's Standing Naval Force Mediterranean, and HMS Invincible is also in the Mediterranean, having recently participated in a major regional NATO exercise designed to improve interoperability and co-operation on land, sea and in the air.
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary Resource is at Split, where she has played a crucial role in support of our forces in Bosnia. I had the chance to visit the headquarters of the RFA in July, and I pay a warm and handsome tribute to the officers and crews of the RFA. Without them, the Royal Navy could not function.
In June, I visited the Royal Marine Commando training centre at Lympstone. I wish that the entire House could see the Royal Marines' fantastically high standards, both physically and in terms of their exceptional military capability, and also their superb esprit de corps. Today, elements of the Marines are conducting field-firing training in Cyprus, boat and beach training in the Netherlands and other exercises in Brunei and the United States. A fleet diving unit is taking part in a NATO mine warfare exercise in Turkey, and 40 Commando is luckily taking leave after an excellent tour in Northern Ireland.
Like many other Members, I have had opportunities to visit our submariners at Faslane. I wish to pay my tribute to the dedicated men who serve in both our hunter killer

685
and Trident boats, and before them on the Polaris vessels which served us so well for 30 years. We place on them and their families the most strenuous demands and they respond with demonstrable spirit and fortitude.
As the House will be fully aware, the Army's operational commitments are not limited to Bosnia and Northern Ireland. In Hong Kong, the resident Gurkha battalion will remain until next month, when it will move to the United Kingdom. I assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that he need have no anxiety about the Gurkhas. They are a valued and important part of our defence capability.
The Army continues to provide infantry and Royal Engineer forces in the Falklands, and closer to home we maintain a garrison of 3,000 troops in Cyprus to maintain the security and integrity of the sovereign base areas.
Tonight, elements of the Army are on exercise in Germany, Canada, Kenya, Jordan and Australia, and they have recently completed a major exercise in Poland. About 250 officers and soldiers serve in training teams assisting the armed forces of our friends.
As the House knows, the Royal Air Force continues to do admirable work in Bosnia, where six Harrier GR7 aircraft based in Gioia, together with a tanker, provide recce support for IFOR. The RAF also provides six Chinook helicopters, which have supported the ground forces. The support helicopter force has done a fantastic job in Bosnia and elsewhere, and I am delighted to mark it out tonight for its admirable work.
In the Gulf, we have six Tornado GRIs, supported by a tanker, which fly as the UK contribution to the southern no-fly zone, and over northern Iraq six Tornados are operating out of Incirli. Fast jets, AWACS—the airborne warning and communication system—support helicopters, transport and maritime aircraft are all involved tonight on training exercises both at home and overseas.
Everywhere I have been, I have been greatly impressed with the high personal standards of RAF personnel. The whole House should know that, this year, they have won a number of extremely important awards that confirm their skill and pre-eminence among all other air crew in the world. The House will particularly wish to congratulate the crew from 72 Squadron, to whom the Princess Royal presented last week the Edward and Maisie Lewis award for the most notable air sea rescue of the year, in extraordinarily difficult circumstances off the Falkland Islands.
There is no doubt that present demands made upon the three services are very heavy. My hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Canterbury and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) have all made that clear. Clearly, they are working to a high level of tasking, and that places real pressures on both men and equipment. I find morale, nevertheless, to be extremely good, but I am under no illusions, nor is anyone here, as to the pressures on service personnel and their families.
I take this opportunity to salute the service wives and their families, and take this chance to thank them for their tolerance and forbearance over the past 12 months. Each of the services is conscious of its obligations for the welfare of its dependants, and I pay tribute to the efforts of those service welfare organizations—from the Soldiers,
686
Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, to the Navy, Army, Air Force Institute to the Royal British Legion—who do so much to support those engaged in the defence of the realm.
I also endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport about the great importance of the medical services. I am pleased that he is pleased about HMS Dolphin, and we shall continue to watch that situation carefully.
I would also like to thank all the civilian staff of the MOD, wherever they may be, who do so much to support military operations. Without them, the armed forces simply could not function. We greatly value and cherish our civilian work force, who have had to cope with formidable change. We are lucky indeed to have such loyal support from our civil servants, at all levels.
Many of the activities undertaken by our armed forces are connected with our allies and partners—as displayed in Bosnia, where we continue to play a central role in our development of closer relations with the countries of central and eastern Europe, where we have the closest possible and burgeoning relationships. We regard these as extremely important. A number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and others, mentioned the importance of the enlargement of NATO.
The opportunity to exercise our forces in countries we used to regard as adversaries is one of the most tangible reminders of just how far we have come in such a short time. I visited the 7th Armoured Brigade on exercise in Poland recently and had an opportunity to see them exercising on testing and unfamiliar terrain with their Polish colleagues. That is surely a remarkably testimony—seven years after the fall of the Berlin wall and more than 57 years since the German invasion of Poland—of the strategic changes that the world has seen.
There are numerous poignant demonstrations of the depth of the defence relations that we have established in the region. A British Army brigadier is serving as special adviser to the Czech Chief of the General Staff. A British colonel is on attachment to the Latvian army as Deputy Chief of the General Staff. Both attachments have provided a permanent and readily available source of advice to their hosts.
The reserve forces continue to make a vital contribution to our defence capabilities. Reservists have been involved in operations in the former Yugoslavia from the very first deployments. All together some 1,700 reservists, the majority from the Territorial Army, have been called out. All have been volunteers and they have performed very well.
A smaller, but no less important, contribution is provided by members of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who are serving in Turkey in support of the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. We are committed to using our reserves more widely and more flexibly. The Reserve Forces Act 1996 will enable us to do just that. The Act, which has been widely welcomed, updates the law on reserves and provides for their more flexible use, introducing important new safeguards for employers and reservists. This is a very important and useful step forward, and work is now under way to develop the necessary secondary legislation to enable the Act's new powers to operate.

687
I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell, North for his co-operation and that of his hon. Friends in the Committee in which that Bill was seen through the House of Commons. It was, I agree, an admirable and model way of doing the business.
Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermiline, West)rose—
Mr. Soames: No, I must carry on.
The House will also wish to recognise the wonderful work of the cadet forces. As well as giving many young people their first experience of the armed forces and the service way of life, they play an important wider role in our national life, helping in the development of qualities such as good citizenship, self-reliance and self-confidence. I am grateful to those thousands of adult volunteers and parents who give selflessly of their time to make cadet units an immense success. They are greatly valued.
A number of hon. Members have referred to manning, recruitment and morale. Some hon. Members have rightly expressed concern about levels of recruitment to the armed forces. I am glad to say that recruitment is picking up well. We are not complacent about it, but we are determined to carry on and to ensure that we maintain the good flow of recruits.
Ms Squire rose—
Mr. Soames: I will not give way.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his opening remarks yesterday, said that the Bett review contained many complex issues and interrelationships which need to be carefully considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has also spoken of that matter.
I know that the House will agree that those are vital questions which need the most careful and detailed consideration. It is crucial that we take the appropriate time to get them right. More work is required and we will take all the time we need to ensure that we get the right answers. We shall not be rushed into making decisions and the exercise will take some months yet.
While the Labour party postures and poses, with its wholly unbelievable and unreal so-called defence policy, it mocks the ethos of the armed forces with its left-wing obsessions for all the ghastly politically correct nostrums that dominate Labour Members' lives. The Labour party will never be able to understand that the armed forces have a need to be different.
Socialists should remember in their prattling and wittering that, for the young service man and woman of today, the fundamental character of war will remain unchanged. Those highly trained men and women will have to take part in a terrifying contest of wills for which they will need to be highly trained and in which they will have to cope with extreme danger, in rapidly changing circumstances, amid conditions of chaos and uncertainty. Their skills and the quality of their leadership, weapons and equipment will be severely tested.
Such operations are sustainable only by men highly motivated by tremendous pride in their regiment, their corps, their service and their traditions. My hon. Friends and I do not believe that the Labour party has the first idea
688
what that means. It believes those things to be irrelevant abstractions, and it is clear that they neither appreciate nor understand us.
What the House heard last night from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) was a fraud and a sham. A Labour defence policy consists of a succession of formulae designed to enable people who profoundly disagree to persuade themselves that they are in total agreement. It will not wash and the country will not buy it, because ordinary people know, as do Conservative Members, that Labour, old or new, simply does not care about defence. To Labour, defence simply does not matter. It is not a priority. But all the qualities that mark out the services as being so admirable and formidable are wholly inimical and entirely contrary to socialists' left-wing beliefs. They are entirely alien concepts to socialist Labour, old or new.
We on the Conservative Benches cannot and will not ever forget the spineless craven folly of the same people on the Opposition Benches and their reckless and grotesque flirtation with CND and other fellow travellers in the 1980s. When it mattered, Labour bottled out and chucked in the sponge. If Labour had been in power in the 80s there would have been no cruise missiles and no Trident. There might have been serious consequences to our national security. Labour proved then once and for all that it can never be trusted with defence.
This pathetic and wholly implausible attempt by Labour spokesmen to suggest that there can be consensus between us on major defence issues is not sustainable because of their record. I recommend that my hon. Friends remember that 18 of the 24 present members of the shadow Cabinet were formerly CND members. They are not to be trusted on defence. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the amendment and to vote for the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 290.

Division No. 214

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Adams, Mrs Irene

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Ainger, Nick

Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ashton, Joseph

Campbell-Savours, D N

Austin-Walker, John

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Harry

Cann, Jamie

Barron, Kevin

Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

Battle, John

Chidgey, David

Bayley, Hugh

Chisholm, Malcolm

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Church, Ms Judith

Beith, A J

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clelland, David

Benton, Joe

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Coffey, Ms Ann

Berry, Roger

Cohen, Harry

Betts, Clive

Connarty, Michael

Blunkett, David

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Boateng, Paul

Corbett, Robin

Bradley, Keith

Corbyn, Jeremy

689

Corston, Ms Jean

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Dalyell, Tam

Keen, Alan

Darling, Alistair

Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

Davidson, Ian

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Khabra, Piara S

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kirkwood, Archy

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Denham, John

Lewis, Terry

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Dixon, Rt Hon Don

Litherland, Robert

Dobson, Frank

Livingstone, Ken

Donohoe, Brian H

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Dowd, Jim

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McAllion, John

Eagle, Ms Angela

McFall, John

Eastham, Ken

McKelvey, William

Etherington, Bill

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McLeish, Henry

Fatchett Derek

McMaster, Gordon

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

McNamara, Kevin

Fisher, Mark

MacShane, Denis

Flynn, Paul

McWilliam, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Madden, Max

Foster, Don (Bath)

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Foulkes, George

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Fraser, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Galloway, George

Martlew, Eric

Gapes, Mike

Maxton, John

George, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Gerrard, Neil

Michael, Alun

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Godsiff, Roger

Milburn, Alan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Miller, Andrew

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Graham, Thomas

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Morgan, Rhodri

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morley, Elliot

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Grocott, Bruce

Mowlam, Ms Marjorie

Gunnell, John

Mudie, George

Hain, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Hall, Mike

Murphy, Paul

Hanson, David

Oakes, Gordon

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Harvey, Nick

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Henderson, Doug

O'Hara, Edward

Heppell, John

Olner, Bill

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Neill, Martin

Hinchliffe, David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Pearson, Ian

Hoey, Miss Kate

Pendry, Tom

Home Robertson, John

Pickthall, Colin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pike, Peter L

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Pope, Greg

Howells, Dr Kim

Powell, Sir Ray (Ogmore)

Hoyle, Doug

Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Prescott, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Radice, Giles

Hutton, John

Randall, Stuart

Illsley, Eric

Raynsford, Nick

Ingram, Adam

Reid, Dr John

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Rendel, David

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jamieson, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Janner, Greville

Rogers, Allan

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Rooney, Terry

690

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Timms, Stephen

Rowlands, Ted

Tipping, Paddy

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Touhig, Don

Sedgemore, Brian

Trickett, Jon

Sheerman, Barry

Turner, Dennis

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tyler, Paul

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Vaz, Keith

Short, Ms Clare

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Skinner, Dennis

Wallace, James

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

Walley, Ms Joan

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N

Snape, Peter

Watson, Mike

Soley, Clive

Welsh, Andrew

Spearing, Nigel

Wicks, Malcolm

Spellar, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Winnick, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Stott Roger

Worthington, Tony

Strang, Dr Gavin

Wright, Dr Tony

Straw, Jack

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Thurnham, Peter

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Alexander, Richard

Churchill, Mr

Alison, Michael (Selby)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Amess, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Arbuthnot, James

Coe, Sebastian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Colvin, Michael

Ashby, David

Congdon, David

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Conway, Derek

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Baldry, Tony

Couchman, James

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Cran, James

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Bates, Michael

Curry, Rt Hon David

Batiste, Spencer

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Bellingham, Henry

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bendall, Vivian

Day, Stephen

Beresford, Sir Paul

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Biffen, John

Devlin, Tim

Body, Sir Richard

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord

Booth, Hartley

James

Boswell, Tim

Dover, Den

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Duncan, Alan

Bottomley, Virginia

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bowis, John

Dunn, Bob

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Durant Sir Anthony

Brandreth, Gyles

Dykes, Hugh

Brazier, Julian

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Bright, Sir Graham

Elletson, Harold

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Evennett, David

Burns, Simon

Faber, David

Burt, Alistair

Fabricant, Michael

Butcher, John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Butler, Peter

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Butterfill, John

Forman, Nigel

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Carrington, Matthew

Forth, Eric

Carttiss, Michael

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Cash, William

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

691

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Knox, Sir David

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Kynoch, George

French, Douglas

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fry, Sir Peter

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Gale, Roger

Legg, Barry

Gallie, Phil

Leigh, Edward

Gardiner, Sir George

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Gill, Christopher

Lidington, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Lilley, Peter

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Lord, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Luff, Peter

Gorst, Sir John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

McCrea, Rev William

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

MacKay, Andrew

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Grylls, Sir Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Hague, Rt Hon William

Madel, Sir David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hampson, Dr Keith

Malone, Gerald

Hannam, Sir John

Mans, Keith

Hargreaves, Andrew

Marland, Paul

Harris, David

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Marshall, Sr Michael (Arundel)

Hawkins, Nick

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Hawksley, Warren

Mates, Michael

Hayes, Jerry

Merchant, Piers

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Mills, Iain

Hendry, Charles

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Moate, Sir Roger

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Horam, John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Norris, Steve

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hunter, Andrew

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Ottaway, Richard

Jack, Michael

Page, Richard

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Paice, James

Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Jessel, Toby

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pawsey, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Pickles, Eric

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Key, Robert

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rathbone, Tim

Kirkhope, Timothy

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Knapman, Roger

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Richards, Rod

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Riddick, Graham

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

692

Robathan, Andrew

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangf'd)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Thomason, Roy

Roe, Mrs Marion

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Rowe, Andrew

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Rumbold, Dame Angela

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Tracey, Richard

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Trend, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Trotter, Neville

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Viggers, Peter

Shersby, Sir Michael

Walden, George

Sims, Sir Roger

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waller, Gary

Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

Ward, John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Soames, Nicholas

Waterson, Nigel

Speed, Sir Keith

Watts, John

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Whitney, Ray

Spicer, Sr Michael (S Worcs)

Whittingdale, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Widdecombe, Miss Ann

Spring, Richard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Sproat, Iain

Wilkinson, John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Willetts, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilshire, David

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stephen, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Stern, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Streeter, Gary

Yeo, Tim

Sumberg, David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996 contained in Cm.3223.

BUISNESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the motion in the name of Secretary Sir George Young relating to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Asylum (Designated Countries)
10.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the draft Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the order is passed, it will have a great effect on many hon. Members' advice services, so I shall attempt to raise it with my usual mix of charity and cynicism. The order was announced as business at 4 pm yesterday, but I understand that it was not placed in the Vote Office until 4.30. We have therefore had only a very limited time in which to consider its merits and to hear observations from the many organisations that will be affected by it.
If such a limited time is in order, I am sure that the speed at which the order is to be dealt with will give rise to some concern. If it is in order, is there any way in which the business can be postponed for further consultation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The hon. Gentleman knows in his heart that it is perfectly in order and that his point of order was a matter of argument.
Miss Widdecombe: I cannot resist commenting on what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) attempted to pass as a point of order. The seven countries now listed were in fact proposed by the Secretary of State as long ago as December 1995, on Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The hon. Gentleman has therefore had plenty of time to work out what he wishes to say.
The order designates seven countries as safe countries of destination under schedule 2(5) to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 as substituted by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The order also designates four countries as safe third countries under section 2 of the 1996 Act.
The effect of designating a country as a safe country of destination is that refused applications will normally attract the accelerated appeal procedure that already operates in certain other types of case. The designation of safe third countries has the effect of enabling an applicant for asylum who can be returned to a third country to be removed there without waiting for any appeal against the decision to consider his claim substantively.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe: It is somewhat early in my speech, but I will give way.
Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way somewhat early. I should like her to deal with something in the order. Will she tell us whether the words in paragraph 2 of the order,
"in general no serious risk of persecution",
694
are to be taken to mean that, for some people, the Government accept that there is a risk of persecution? If not, what other meaning are we to ascribe to the introduction of the words "in general"?
Miss Widdecombe: The words "in general" mean exactly that: in general. We have repeatedly made the point that, even in those countries in which there is general safety, some people will have a well-founded fear of persecution. That is exactly why, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, a small number of people qualify either for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain even in those countries that produce a very high percentage of rejections every year. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, but had he waited he would have heard me repeat it.
In relation to both types of designation, the overall purpose is to enable asylum applications to be dealt with more speedily and effectively, without departing in any way from the principle that each case is to be considered on its individual merits and without detriment to the position of any genuine refugee.
The seven countries designated as safe countries of destination are Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, India, Pakistan, Poland and Romania. Those are the same seven countries which, during Parliament's consideration of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Government stated were being considered as candidates for designation. We believe that each of those countries has functioning institutions, stability and pluralism in sufficient measure to support an assessment that the general level of risk to people living in the country is sufficiently low to warrant designation.
We have made available—I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will wish to read it—an explanatory note on the designation of the seven countries, in addition to background country assessments setting out the Government's view of the general conditions in each of them.
We have also made clear the three main criteria that must be met for us to consider designation appropriate. The first criterion is that there is, in general, no serious risk of persecution in that country or territory. The second criterion is that the number of asylum applications in the United Kingdom from its nationals is significant. The third is that a very high percentage of applications are refused on examination.
Mr. Max Madden: The Minister has mentioned the home country assessment. Will she say how long those documents have been in preparation? Will she confirm or deny that reputable human rights organisations based in this country have been consulted about the views on human rights—particularly in India and Pakistan—expressed in those documents?
Miss Widdecombe: As I said in answer to an earlier intervention, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the seven countries as long ago as December 1995. Obviously, it was open to people to make representations to us once those countries were mentioned. Some people did so, and I met a group about the issue of safety in Pakistan.
We have taken into account not only detailed information and deliberation by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but a range of information from

695
other bodies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Amnesty International. The reports have had various times for preparation, according to which of the seven countries they dealt with, but they have been extremely detailed. They have not—if this is the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)—been rushed at the last minute. Full consideration has been given to the detail in those reports. If, when he has read them—he may already have done so as I know that he is very quick—the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me any particular issues relating to statements that we have made on those assessments, I shall be delighted to meet him or to engage in correspondence with him on those points.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): My hon. Friend will be aware that, in some of the countries that have been designated, the way in which the ruling party most commonly asserts a slight shift in its religious stance is to take it out on the Christian minority. Will she give an assurance that her Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be properly aware of the extraordinary vulnerability of Christians in Muslim countries which may suddenly wish to send a signal about being more or less fundamentalist, and do so by victimising Christian minorities?
Miss Widdecombe: I can of course give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will make sure that we are aware of any minority who are suffering in any way. But when people apply to this country for asylum, as my hon. Friend well knows, we have to assess each individual case on its merits. We do not create classes of persons who are automatically entitled to asylum. Each case will have to be established on its merits.
Mr. Bernie Grant: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is she aware of the recent heightened tension in Cyprus, where at the weekend a Greek Cypriot was tragically shot by Turkish forces? Has she taken that into account when designating Cyprus as a safe country?
Miss Widdecombe: I repeat yet again that every individual case is considered on its merits. The fact that a country has been designated does not mean that people who claim that they are victims of circumstances—whether circumstances that were known to us when we designated the country concerned or any subsequent circumstances—will not still have the full right to have their cases individually and thoroughly considered. If we did any less, we would be in breach of our obligations under the Geneva convention.
Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe: I will give way once more only.
Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that the constitution of Pakistan contains provisions which stigmatise Ahmadis and condemn them to long periods of imprisonment simply for claiming that they are Muslims, and that laws against Christians are enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan? How can one say that a country is generally
696
safe when the constitution itself contains provisions of that nature, which no party in Pakistan has the guts to repeal?
Miss Widdecombe: We would consider whether an Ahmadi in that situation faced persecution, whether he could go to a centre such as Rabwah where he would he safe, or whether he could go elsewhere in the country where he would be safe. If he could not, we would consider the circumstances that constituted a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution. Each individual who applies to us, on whatever basis, will have such questions asked.
I want now to make progress, because I am getting a series of questions about the individual Governments of the countries concerned. They are all answered by one point which I cannot stress enough—that every individual case will be fully considered. The creation of a designated list is not the creation of a blanket ban, or even the creation of a presumption of refusal: it is straightforwardly an accelerated procedure. Designation is not a new concept unique to the—
Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe: I normally give way to Opposition Front-Bench Members, but I did say that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) was the last Member to whom I would give way.
Mr. Straw: I should be very grateful.
Miss Widdecombe: All right, but then the hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
Mr. Straw: Will the Minister reflect on the statement that she has just made? She said that the white list did not lead to a rebuttable presumption that an application was unfounded. But the background paper published by her own Department said exactly the opposite.
Miss Widdecombe: What I said—as the hon. Member for Blackburn will see if he consults Hansard—is that there would be "no presumption of refusal". If somebody puts in an application, it will be considered on its merits. We shall not start with the idea that we are turning down an application, regardless of its merits. That is what I said, and if Opposition Members listen to the debate, they will learn what the designated list is all about. It is not a new concept and it is not unique to the United Kingdom. Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and Finland already operate similar arrangements.
We have stressed on many occasions the safeguards built into the designation principle. There will be no blanket ban on claims from designated countries. Each claim will be considered on its merits, and an applicant will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator. Last year, at least 97 per cent. of claims from nationals of the seven countries were refused—more than 6,750 applications. Those claims that are refused will attract the accelerated appeal procedure. Moreover, if the adjudicator agrees that the application is unfounded, that will be the end of the matter. There will be no further avenue of appeal to the immigration tribunal.

697
In short, designation will allow the asylum process to deal quickly with the large number of unfounded applications that we currently receive from countries which are, in general, safe, while recognising the small number of applicants from such countries who may have genuine claims.
In determining which countries should be designated, we are required to make a judgment about whether the general level of risk to people living in a country is sufficiently low to warrant designation. The words
"in general no serious risk of persecution"
in the fifth paragraph of schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 make that quite clear. Designation does not mean that a country should be universally "safe" or that its institutions should function in every respect to western standards. The wording of the Act clearly rules out the designation of any country where there is a significant level of persecution, even if it is targeted only at minorities.
Ms Liz Lynne: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No, I wish to make some progress.
The list of countries that we have proposed for designation excludes a number of countries which generate large numbers of unfounded asylum claims but in which there are nevertheless sufficient concerns about human rights that the requirement of the Act is not met. An obvious example would be Nigeria.
I now refer to the second part of the order and the designation of safe third countries. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 provided that, in cases where the safe third country concerned is a member state of the European Union, applicants may exercise their right of appeal only after they have left the UK. Hon. Members may recall that we proposed this change because we were finding that delays caused by the appeals process were making it difficult to effect removals in many cases where it was clear that the third country was perfectly safe for the applicant.
We stated during parliamentary discussions on the Act that we were considering using the power provided in section 2(3) of the 1996 Act to extend this procedure to certain selected non-EU states. The United States, Canada and Switzerland were mentioned in the debate. To these, the asylum order adds Norway. Taken together, those states constitute the majority of present non-EU third country cases. I do not intend to describe in any detail why we consider each of the countries to be suitable for designation. They are all states with long-established and respected human rights records. A detailed description of the countries' asylum laws and procedures, together with an explanation of why we are satisfied that returned asylum seekers would be treated in accordance with the UN convention, is set out in the individual appraisals for each country that we have made available to Parliament.
I commend the order to the House.
10.33 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: We oppose the order, and we shall vote against it. Anyone who was in any doubt about the merits of the order need only have listened to the disingenuous sophistry that we heard from the Minister of State a moment ago.
698
By international conventions, the United Kingdom is bound to consider each asylum application on its merits, but the so-called white list of designated countries will in practice prevent that from happening. Under this system, all applicants from countries on the list will be presumed to be bogus—without foundation—unless they can prove otherwise.
Miss Widdecombe indicated dissent.
Mr. Straw: The Minister disagrees, but she is damned out of her own mouth. She says that there is no presumption of refusal. In that case I ask her why the Home Office—she has endorsed the words time and again—said that the white list would set up a rebuttable presumption that asylum applications from designated countries were unfounded. If they are unfounded, they will be refused.
The truth is the reverse of what the Minister has said: there is a presumption of refusal. That is exactly what the House was told by the Home Office when the white list was introduced. If there is no presumption of refusal, what purpose is served by a white list? The Minister tried to weave her way through the contortions of her argument by implying that there would be no difference between the treatment of an applicant from a white list country and an applicant from a country that is not on the list. If so, I repeat: what purpose is served by the white list?
Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman were a genuine applicant wanting his asylum application considered, would he not be grateful for any measure that speeded up the processing of unfounded claims?
Mr. Straw: I would be grateful, whatever country I came from, if that were so, but the Government are not taking genuine steps to speed up the process and ensure that each application is considered on its merits. They are cobbling together an arrangement that suggests that people from the designated countries are at no general risk of persecution. Thereafter, those applicants will most certainly be treated as second-class applicants, and their applications stand to be refused unless they can rebut the presumption of refusal.
Mr. Michael Stephen rose—
Mr. Straw: I want to quote the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir J. Critchley), who got it exactly right in a letter to The Times of July this year. We are all sorry that the hon. Member cannot be here tonight. Writing about this system, he said:
"It is of course impossible to distinguish the genuine from the fraudulent until a case has been thoroughly examined".
The result, he added, is that the system will
"affect the genuine refugee as well"
as the bogus refugee. We oppose the principle behind the white list and, in government, we shall not operate it.
The white list's only purpose is to put applicants from the designated countries at a disadvantage. Its operation, in our judgment, conflicts with the spirit of our international obligations.
Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a rebuttable presumption. If the presumption is rebuttable,

699
surely that means that the applicant has an opportunity to rebut it. How, therefore, can the hon. Gentleman maintain that the applicant has no right to have his case heard on its merits?
Mr. Straw: It is always delightful to give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is always so badly informed. It was not I who maintained that there was a rebuttable presumption: it was the Government. It was a Home Office background paper published just over a year ago which said it. The hon. Gentleman should think about this and perhaps write a submission to the Secretary of State about it—
Mr. Stephen: Give way.
Mr. Straw:—before he stands up again and makes a fool of himself. The simple question for him concerns what purpose the white list serves if it is not to disadvantage certain applicants and to ensure that the merits of an application from a country on the white list will be less well considered than those of an application from elsewhere.
On Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Secretary of State said that one of the criteria that he would adopt in selecting countries for designation was that, in general, there was no serious risk of persecution—but the countries selected are not those that generally feature at the top of any list of nations that are celebrated for their protection of human rights. Bulgaria, Ghana, Pakistan, Poland and Romania would not be at the top of any such list. It is no coincidence that the countries that celebrate and protect human rights are not on that list—generally, they do not generate any asylum seekers. Instead, almost without exception, each of the countries on the list has had a recent history of profound political unrest or of continuing instability in one area or with some minority group.
Ms Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that India is on that list, considering the human rights record in Indian-held Kashmir, where torture, rape and killings happen regularly?
Mr. Straw: It is strange that any country is on the list, but the choice of the countries that are on the list is especially strange, for reasons that I shall explain.
If we look down the list, we can see that the first criterion—the claim that, in general, there is no serious risk of persecution in a country—has been subordinated to the Home Secretary's second and third criteria, which are that the countries generate a significant number of asylum claims and that a high proportion prove to be unfounded. It is worse than that. Ministers have had to turn themselves into apologists for the poor human rights record of many of those countries to make them qualify for inclusion.
In the short time available, I wish to illustrate my point by reference to one of the countries on the list: Pakistan. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will make similar points about most of the other countries on the list. I have many constituents who come from Pakistan. I have visited the country and I follow its history and politics with great interest. Most of my constituents from Pakistan, whatever their political affiliations in that country, would regard the
700
country assessment published by the Home Office as a joke. It is a risible but revealing document, riddled with inconsistency and designed to justify the unjustifiable.
The document is supposed to provide immigration officers and caseworkers with a feel for the country and some assessment of how it operates and its politics, but it does not refer to the single most traumatic event in Pakistan's political history—the death of Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who was executed by the military dictatorship of General Zia ul-Haq in 1979. There is not one reference to those events, and nothing about the dictatorship of General Zia—or about the dictator's death in mysterious circumstances in 1985. No sense is therefore given of the potent role that political violence has played, sadly, in Pakistan almost throughout its history.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Could the hon. Gentleman kindly tell the House what conceivable relevance those events have to the situation in Pakistan today?
Mr. Straw: That intervention merely shows the strength of my case that the document is a joke—and so are the comments of the Home Secretary. He is damned out of his own mouth. What relevance does the execution of Bhutto in 1979 have now?
Mr. Howard rose—
Mr. Straw: I am answering the Home Secretary's question, if he will sit down.
What relevance does the dictatorship of Zia have for today's events? I will tell him. Zia executed Bhutto, Zia came to power and Zia passed Ordinance XX, which made it illegal for the Ahmadis to claim that they are Muslims. That has led to 2,400 Ahmadis facing trial for blasphemy under that law and 21 facing the prospect of death. That is the relevance, and I am astonished that the Home Secretary has omitted that information.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. His answer has strayed so far from my question that it shows his complete unfitness to stand at the Dispatch Box. The party of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is the present Government of Pakistan and the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is the present Prime Minister of Pakistan, so what conceivable relevance does the death of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, which happened all those years ago, have to present conditions in Pakistan?
Mr. Straw: It helps people to understand that Pakistan has a long and continuing history of serious political violence. The Secretary of State talks about the Bhutto family as though the violence that it has suffered happened 17 or 18 years ago. Is he not aware—the document says nothing about it—that Benazir Bhutto's brother was the subject of a political killing on 27 September? Are we conveniently to ignore that killing so that the Secretary of State can whitewash Pakistan's human rights record?
This document is about whitewashing the records of countries such as Pakistan to force them into the Government's designated list. Rarely have I seen a Secretary of State (so clearly) damned out of his own

701
mouth by his ignorance of the state of a country that he has designated. He asks what relevance the country's history has. The document goes all the way back to 1947; it is not as though it talks only about the past few years.
Although the people who wrote it clearly thought that history was of some importance, they decided to fillet the history. They say that Pakistan was set up in 1947 and is an
"Islamic republic with a system of parliamentary democracy."
I happen to think that it is useful to know that that system of parliamentary democracy has had the occasional hiccup, with military dictatorships, the killing of Prime Ministers, and the political killing of the brother of the present Prime Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, ordinances and laws passed by the dictatorship are still in force as a result of the present Government's refusal to change them, because, in my view, they are too cowardly to do so.
In properly functioning democracies, it is unusual for the Prime Minister's brother to be the subject of a political killing, as happened recently in Pakistan. The fact that that killing is not mentioned in this country assessment simply illustrates how quickly the assessments, even if they were accurate, can become out of date.
The country assessment on Pakistan blithely claims—my hon. Friends should weigh these words with care—that
"as a democracy there is freedom of opinion and assembly"
with, for example, a thriving newspaper industry, generally free to discuss public issues. But even the report's authors knew that they could not tax the incredulity of their readers too far, so they go on to admit, in respect of newspapers, that
"the government retains the power of confiscation for a wide range of prohibitions"—
on newspapers—
"which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."
The report goes on to say:
"The government though does exercise a certain amount of pressure on the free press".
The British Government exercise a certain amount of pressure on the free press, so they will know all about that. But in Pakistan's case, it is not tea at the Prime Minister's residence or even the offer of the Pakistani equivalent of a knighthood to compliant editors, but
"the withdrawal of government advertising revenue on which the papers depend"
and therefore their temporary closure. That is the minor pressure that is placed on editors in Pakistan. If they step out of line, the "free press" is simply closed down. The document goes on to say:
"Newspaper offices have also been raided by the security forces".
The document also reveals arguments that undermine much of the Government's approach to asylum issues. Throughout the debate earlier this year, we claimed that most asylum applications were related to the sense of fear felt by particular communities as a result of political instability. The Government simply countered that most applications were bogus and somehow arose in a random way or as a result of economic forces. The most oppressed group in Pakistan is, by general agreement, the Ahmadis.
702
It is no surprise—even this document admits—that there are now no applications from supporters of Mrs. Bhutto's Pakistan People's party and lots of applications from that oppressed group, the Ahmadis.
I have already spelt out to the House the fact that, although General Zia ul-Haq died in 1985, his dictatorial legacy lives on in the objectionable Ordinance XX, which prohibits Ahmadis from declaring that they are Muslims and carries serious penalties for those who do—some 2,400 Ahmadis are being processed under the ordinance. In addition, it provides for the death penalty for Ahmadis for blasphemy, and 21 are currently awaiting trial. That is the state of affairs in a country where the Minister says that there is no general fear of persecution. I believe that that is an utterly disgraceful statement, which takes no account of the real situation in Pakistan.
The country assessment sought to make light of the little local difficulties faced by the Ahmadis. It says that their rights
"are safeguarded under the [Pakistan] constitution".
Conveniently, the assessment's overall conclusion is:
"there is no evidence of government led persecution of minorities … where discrimination or harassment does occur, it emanates from the actions of individuals or groups at local level".
That conclusion is disputed by all human rights groups who know anything about the situation in Pakistan and we now know that it is also disputed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I have a copy of a letter, which was sent to me recently, from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). Dated May 1996, it refers to the problems faced by the Ahmadis, and states:
"The main problems faced by the Ahmadi community stem from a … Constitutional Amendment which designates Ahmadis as non-muslims and from the blasphemy laws which specifically make certain expressions of the Ahmadi faith illegal."
It continues:
"Radical sectarian groups and individuals have taken encouragement from these laws, and have carried out attacks against Ahmadis. In some cases there are credible reports that the local authorities have given tacit support to these actions."
The letter confirms two things—first, that at local level it is not, as the Minister's country assessment suggests, unofficial groups or individuals who are harassing Ahmadis but the official local authorities. They are part of the Government and, in Pakistan, are usually under the thumb of the provincial governor who, in turn, is appointed by the President. In other words, those local authorities are part of the Government apparatus.
Secondly, the Foreign Office letter confirms that the fundamental cause of the abuse of Ahmadis is not the unofficial actions of a few groups or individuals, but the result of the Government's actions in sustaining the objectionable Ordinance XX. I am glad to learn that the Pakistan Government wish to change the law, but the simple fact is that it is on the statute book, it is in force and 2,400 Ahmadis are awaiting trial as a result of its objectionable nature.
During Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, I referred hon. Members to the experience of the United States in the matter of "white lists". In the 1980s, the United States faced a much more difficult situation regarding asylum than that which confronts this country today. It considered the idea of a

703
white list procedure, but it wisely discarded the proposal before it was brought into force. It thought that the process of deciding whether a country should go on or come off the white list would embroil, complicate and compromise the United States Government regarding that country's human rights record. It also believed that the standing of the United States could be damaged in the process and that many more court actions—the equivalent of our judicial review—could result.
The United States Government were right on every count and the British Government are wrong on every count. The white list, and the country assessments on which the list is based, are partial, defective and profoundly unfair. They will hit the genuine applicant as hard as the bogus applicant and they will damage the United Kingdom's reputation as a defender of human rights. We shall oppose the order in the Lobby tonight.
10.54 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to raise a procedural point. I hope that it will not delay the continuation of a highly charged and serious debate that concerns us all.
The order does not contain a compliance cost assessment. The Government say that every Bill that comes before the House should be scrutinised to assess the cost that will have to be met by private business. The Government wish to avoid putting any extra burden on private business.
The concept of assessment in every statutory instrument and every Act was not, understandably, a feature of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, except in the sections dealing with employment and the cost to industry in terms of establishing the status of new employees. That was because private business was affected.
I raise this technical point because, on 22 May 1996, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in a measured and thoughtful speech, said that cost compliance assessment would be considered to be extended to public costs as well as private costs. That meant that every Bill and every statutory instrument would contain a compliance cost assessment that took account of the additional burden on the public purse on the basis of whether more staff and administrative support would be required.
I expected to find in the order a compliance cost assessment of the additional burden on the public purse. It is not there. Will there be no cost to the public purse, or have the Government yet to decide whether to extend the compliance cost assessment to public costs as well as private costs?
Last year, Lady Blatch, the Minister of State in the other place, said that the number of asylum caseworkers had increased eightfold to nearly 800, and that the Government were investing an additional £37 million to provide for even more caseworkers and adjudicators. The order is silent about additional costs. I understand that there may be some, bearing it in mind that the number of decisions taken has increased from 21,000 in 1994 to 27,000 last year. The number of new claimants reached 44,000 last year.
The Government are committed to less bureaucracy, less officialdom and less red tape. It is not our fault that there are now more asylum seekers than ever before, but
704
why hide the cost of dealing with them? We cannot commit ourselves to compliance cost assessment, which is part of the Government's deregulationary initiative, only to ignore it in the first order to come before us after the summer recess.
10.57 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall concentrate my remarks on Bulgaria, but first I shall make a few general remarks. When we debated the Asylum and Immigration Bill on Second Reading and in Committee—the issue was taken up earlier this evening—it was said that a list of countries would have no effect on individuals. It is one of the most ludicrous suggestions that I have ever heard. It has been admitted this evening, as it was by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, that a country's inclusion in the list will lead to the assumption that an individual's application is not well founded. It defies common sense to pretend that such a person's application will be treated in the same way as an application from a person whose country is not on the list. It is a nonsensical argument. No one outside the House could conceivably believe it.
I would have a little more respect for those who are advancing the argument if they were honest enough to say, "We are producing a list of countries from which we intend to reject applications." That is what the list is about. I would have more respect for those concerned if they were up front about their intentions. Instead they are engaging in the ludicrous pretence that people from all countries will be treated in the same way.
In any event, any applicant must prove that his or her fear of persecution is well founded.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is not my hon. Friend really saying what was said in "Alice in Wonderland" by the Queen of Hearts: Sentence first, trial later?
Mr. Gerrard: That sums it up. It is the guilty until proven innocent approach to the problem. The fact that few people from a particular country—for example, Bulgaria—are given asylum does not in any way justify treating applicants from that country differently. It is interesting to look at what has happened with Bulgaria over the past few years. One person was granted asylum in 1992; there were none in 1993, none in 1994, but five were given exceptional leave. There were none in 1995, but one was given exceptional leave.
The number of applications has been increasing. Why? Those figures do not seem to suggest that anybody could conceivably think that applying for asylum is a soft touch if a person comes from Bulgaria. They are almost all being refused, anyway. But the numbers are going up, and that seems to suggest that something must be happening in Bulgaria to provoke people to apply for asylum.
Anyone who has read the country report—even the Home Office country report—or any human rights organisations' papers on Bulgaria will know of the way in which Roma in particular but also other ethnic minority groups suffer. The Home Office country assessment talks about local inter-ethnic tensions; about widespread resentment of Roma; and about discrimination and violence against Roma, which continue to occur.

705
It does not, of course, mention the fact that Bulgaria is one of only five countries in the Council of Europe that refused to sign the framework convention on the protection of national minorities. It is not the strongest of frameworks, but Bulgaria refused to sign it, and said that it would be against its national interest.
Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty, that look at Bulgaria quote many examples: for example, in April 1993, an assembly of Macedonians was interrupted by the police and people were beaten. In 1994, the robbery of an inhabitant of a small town sparked retaliations against Roma in the area and 20 families' homes were ransacked and destroyed. There are many documented examples of discrimination against such minorities and many reports of police violence and brutality—again, particularly against ethnic minorities in Bulgaria. At the very least, that calls into question the ability of the authorities to provide protection.
Refugee status does not depend on persecution by the state. The United Nations convention makes it absolutely clear that where discriminatory or offensive acts are committed by the local populace they can be considered as persecution if they are tolerated by the authorities or if the authorities refuse to provide protection. That is precisely what happens to people of Romany origin in countries such as Bulgaria.
The Home Office country report goes to great lengths about what has happened to the legal system in Bulgaria, but again the United Nations says that the laws of the country of origin, but particularly the manner in which they are applied, will be relevant. The fact that there is a law that says that there should not be discrimination, but that it is not applied, should be taken into consideration.
I have absolutely no doubt that the white list will lead to discrimination and to injustice, that assumptions will be made about people without looking at their individual case properly. I return to the point with which I started. Nobody can possibly pretend that this system is fair, that it treats people from the white list the same as people who are not on it. What would be the point of a white list if that happened? It is a nonsensical argument. I would have more respect if people were more honest about what they were doing.
11.4 pm
Mr. Michael Stephen: I am grateful for the opportunity, which was denied me by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in the course of his speech, to reply to his rude and, frankly, ignorant response to the point that I put to him. He dodged responding to the substantive issue by relying upon a debating point which, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, even he will see is a false point.
The hon. Gentleman argued that the order deprives an applicant of a hearing of his case on the merits. He accepted or maintained, I care not which, that the presumption raised by the order was a rebuttable one. If the presumption is rebuttable, the applicant will have an opportunity to rebut it. In other words—let me spell it out to the hon. Gentleman—an applicant will have an opportunity to put his case and have it heard on the merits. Therefore, how can the hon. Gentleman possibly argue that the order deprives an applicant of a hearing of his case on the merits?
706
If the applicant happens to be an Ahmadi from Pakistan, I have no doubt that he will say, "I am an Ahmadi from Pakistan," and I have no doubt that he will make the kind of arguments that we have heard this evening. Those arguments will be listened to. The case will be decided on its merits. That will probably also apply to anyone who says, "I am a Romany from Bulgaria." It is obvious that the order speeds up the process of dealing with asylum applicants, particularly paragraphs 2 and 3.
In the speeches of Opposition Ms—no doubt we shall be regaled by more of them in the course of the debate—the attitude seems to be that anyone who comes from a country whose standards are lower than ours in the United Kingdom should have asylum. That argument applies to just about every country in the world.
Opposition Members must know that a large number of asylum applicants to this country are bogus applicants. They must also know that the large number of bogus applicants weigh down our system to the great detriment of the genuine applicants, for whose plight they do not seem to care. All they can say is that more money should be put into the system. I would rather put more money into the pockets of the pensioners in my constituency. [Interruption.] Labour Members always come out in their true colours. They say one thing but do another. They say they want to put more money into the pockets of the pensioners, when really they want to put more money into the pockets of the bureaucrats—same old Labour. They are just the same as they always were.
I cannot imagine how Labour Members think that even their own voters support their ridiculous attitude to immigration into this country.
11.7 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: Yes, well, Madam Deputy Speaker, is all that one can say about the contribution of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).
The order is about speed, not justice. That is the simple message that is sent to the House. The message is clear from the explanatory note, which reminds us that the order provides part of the machinery for an "accelerated appeal procedure". It is not a more effective, more efficient or a more just and equitable appeal procedure: it is an accelerated appeal procedure.
The order establishes a rebuttable presumption against asylum status for those coming from white list countries. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Shoreham can sit still for a moment, try to concentrate and put all his silly notions out of his mind, I will tell him what a rebuttable presumption is.
Let me draw a picture for the hon. Gentleman in his mind of the scales of justice. When civil litigation of any kind starts, the scales of justice are evenly balanced. But in this instance there is a rebuttable presumption, so—if the hon. Gentleman will concentrate again for a moment—a bag of rotten apples is being put in one side of the scales of justice.
That is what a rebuttable presumption is. That is what it means. Metaphorically speaking, asylum seekers from one of the white list countries must eat the bag of rotten apples first, and then present their case. I ask the Minister, who I know is excited by the debate, to concentrate for a few moments, because I hope that we will receive an answer to this when the debate is wound up.

707
I respectfully submit to the House that the Government are doing this contrary to two international treaty obligations.
Miss Widdecombe: Nonsense.
Mr. Carlile: The Minister can reply later. I am glad that she is listening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Name the obligations.
Mr. Carlile: I will. The first is article 3 of the 1951 United Nations convention, which states:
"The contracting states shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion, or country of origin."
It is plain that the white list discriminates against country of origin. What is a white list if it is not a deliberate act by Government to set one lot of countries of origin against another lot of countries of origin? Part of the rationale behind the United States Government's decision not to have a white list system is exactly that they understand article 3 of the 1951 convention.
But the order is also contrary to article 13 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms—I know that the Government do not like it, but we have been in it since 1948—because it provides that—[Interruption.] wonder why the Minister finds this terribly funny. If she would like to intervene and tell us the joke, I would be pleased to hear it, and so would this country's asylum seekers.
Miss Widdecombe: The joke is the sheer ineptitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. If the creation of a designated list were against international law, why is it valid in so many other countries?
Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady must tell us exactly what advice—she must place it in the Library—she has received from Government lawyers and from outside counsel, if the Government have taken it, as to whether—[Interruption.] She seems to find this whole thing a joke. I will give way to the Minister in a moment, but this subject is not regarded as one for hilarity by the many thousands of people who fear that, if they are returned to countries such as India or Pakistan, they will be persecuted.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it ill behoves Ministers to talk about ineptitude when, not once but twice, the spirit of the legislation has been knocked back in the courts as contrary to all tenets of human justice?
Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I was going to remind the Minister that the order appears, at least to me, to breach article 13 of the European convention. The order amounts to an ineffective remedy, because of the introduction of the presumption, and it runs contrary to the Council of Europe resolution of 20 June 1995, in that it gives only 10 days for the asylum seeker to prepare his appeal, which cannot be regarded as adequate time to do so.
708
There is a world of difference between someone who fears real persecution if he is sent back, for example, to Pakistan preparing such an appeal and the purring motor of the high-cost sector of civil litigation, where interlocutory appeals can occasionally be heard within seven or 14 days. The scales of justice are nothing more than the digestion of prejudice by euphemism. The presumption against asylum seekers from these countries is institutionalising prejudice against every applicant from every one of those countries, and the Minister knows it.
The order is all about one thing, and one thing only. It gets the Government out of one of the biggest cock-ups—and that is saying something—that even they have ever created. They have been running the immigration and asylum service for the past 17 years. They have allowed the system to get into the mess it is in.
Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: No, I will not give way.
The Minister of State does not like hearing this, but it is true that the Government have created this chaos.
Miss Widdecombe rose—
Mr. Carlile: I will not give way. The hon. Lady should wait and stop interrupting. She, on behalf of the Government, has created the utter mess that has led to a huge backlog of cases. We are discriminating against people because the Government cannot run the Department properly.
I do not believe that the Minister can deny that people will be sent back to persecution, and possibly even death, as a result of the political regimes in their own countries—a number have already been mentioned—because the Government cannot run their asylum service properly.
11.15 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) about Bulgaria. Nor do I share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about Poland. Both those countries are now full members of the democratic community—the Council of Europe. They have signed the European convention on human rights—
Ms Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Atkinson: No, I shall continue for the time being.
That convention offers the strongest possible protection of human rights—our citizens and members of the Council of Europe are protected by it. Those countries have all held free and fair elections, which is why we allowed them to become full members of the Council of Europe. Both Bulgaria and Poland have strong and active human rights organizations—a residue of their communist days—that know how to operate the machinery of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, I do not share the concerns expressed about those countries being designated as safe countries.
I should say in response to the suggestion that Bulgaria has not yet signed the framework convention on minorities that the hon. Member for Walthamstow must

709
surely know that that has only just come into being. A large number of member states of the Council of Europe have yet to sign it. I have no doubt that Bulgaria will sign it after its presidential elections, which are to be held next month. I have no problems with any member states that are full members of the Council of Europe.
However, I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about the situation in Pakistan—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). I expressed my concerns at Report stage of the Asylum and Immigration Bill on 21 February. In response to those concerns, my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave certain assurances, which she has repeated this evening. She also gave those assurances to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and me when we discussed the situation in Pakistan at a private meeting with her and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary had only just returned from Pakistan, where he had seen the situation for himself—unlike many other people.
In view of the concerns that have been expressed so forcibly by the hon. Member for Blackburn this evening, will my hon. Friend the Minister use the opportunity of her response to point out once again that no Pakistani Christian or member of the Ahmadi sect who applies for asylum in this country and is being subjected to harassment, threat of assassination, life imprisonment or the death penalty for violating section 295(c) of the Pakistani penal code—the blasphemy law—will face the threat of being refused asylum if they have a strong enough case?
Miss Widdecombe: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that no one applying for asylum in this country who has a strong enough case—who makes the case of a well-founded fear of persecution, and sustains the merits of that case—will be refused asylum.
Mr. Atkinson: I am delighted to hear that repetition, which I know the whole House will have noted and—hopefully—found reassuring.
On Report, I referred to a number of Pakistani Christians who had been killed by Muslims because they were Christian. Since then, a new case has been drawn to my attention. To safeguard his identity, he is codenamed Pastor Sam. He converted to Christianity in 1973, since when he has suffered maltreatment, harassment, police beatings, illegal custody, torture and other abuse. Since his Christian marriage, he has been targeted by Islamic extremists, who have falsely accused him of a minor affray in order to have him arrested, after which he would have undoubtedly met death in custody. He was, however, bailed. He is now in hiding awaiting a magistrate's response to allegations of blasphemy under section 295(c) of the Pakistan penal code, which would certainly be accompanied by a charge of apostasy if and when he were arrested, and followed by certain death.
I understand that Pastor Sam and his family will apply for asylum in this country, or will do so shortly on their arrival here. I have sent his details to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, urging that their applications be given the most compassionate consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend
710
the Minister can assure me tonight that, as she has already stressed, the effect of this order will in no way prejudice the applications for asylum from Pastor Sam and his family and others like them in Pakistan.
11.21 pm
Mr. Keith Hill: The principle at stake in this debate is that each asylum application should be assessed on its merits alone. It is the Opposition's contention that the inclusion of a country in the designated list will undermine such individual assessment by creating a presumption against the credibility of that asylum application from a national of a designated country. We have heard nothing from the Minister to allay those anxieties.
The Minister repeatedly said in Committee that each applicant will be treated to a substantive interview, irrespective of whether that applicant is from a designated country. It is unavoidable that a Home Office caseworker will conduct an interview with a designated applicant in the knowledge that a certificate has been issued with regard to that country, and as a consequence be more resistant to the asylum claim. Indeed, if the designated list did not create presumption against the claim, there would be no point in having it.
If a caseworker is in any doubt about the circumstances prevailing in a designated country, he or she will naturally consult the Home Office's country assessment. In relation to Pakistan, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has spoken, the caseworker will find the observation:
"There is no evidence of Government-led persecution of minorities".
In contrast, the United States State Department commented in its 1995 report on Pakistan human rights practices:
"Discriminatory religious legislation has encouraged an atmosphere of religious intolerance which has led to acts of violence against Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and Zikris."
I am pleased to see that, in the Home Office country assessment, applications for asylum from Ahmadis are given very careful scrutiny. Nevertheless, the Home Office assessment also states:
"Ahmadis are recognised as a religious group and rights are safeguarded under the constitution."
That is in totally contrast to the tone of the remarks of the retiring German ambassador to Pakistan, Mr. Alfred Vesting, who earlier this year wrote:
"Both the constitution and the penal code constitute the legal basis of the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, who, should they wish to profess or to practise their faith, must live in constant fear. Since they have been officially dubbed as heretics, they are in their daily life exposed to every possible repression and assault against which they cannot or dare not defend. Thus, they are, so to say, outlawed."
According to the Home Office:
"There is no systematic or Government-led persecution of Christians in Pakistan'.
Nevertheless—this matter has already been referred to by, among others, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)—section 295(c) of the penal code introduced by the Pakistani Government in 1986 stipulates the death penalty for blaspheming the prophet Mohammed, and that provision has been used against Christians. Perhaps the best known case is that of Salamat and Rehmat Masih, both of whom have now—significantly—been granted asylum in the west.

711
The Jubilee Campaign has produced extensive evidence of the continuing imprisonment of and widespread violence against Christians, their churches and their property—outrages often carried out with the connivance of the police and other authorities. I once again cite the US State Department report:
"Among religious minorities there is a well-founded belief that the authorities afford them less legal protection than they afford Muslim citizens."
Contrary to the Home Secretary's claim, there is ample proof of the systematic persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan, and, at the very least, this Government have failed to make a case for including Pakistan in the designated list.
11.25 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I hope that my croaking voice will last long enough to enable me to make one or two points, and that hon. Members will bear with me. I had not intended to speak, but the nonsense that I have heard from the Opposition has brought me to my feet.
One of the most serious immigration and asylum problems we face is the length of the queues for entry into this country. We agree that the shorter we can make those lists and the quicker we can make the process, the better it will be for everyone—not only the British citizens but those we are welcoming into the country under the immigration and asylum process.
It therefore seems eminently sensible that the Government should seek to determine whether there is any way in which it would be reasonable to speed up the entry procedure. They look and see that there are certain countries from which practically every application for asylum is turned down. We know the reasons for that, and it is in that direction that the Government look to speed up the system. They have done so by shortening and, to some extent, reducing the appeal procedure for applicants for asylum from those areas.
The Government have not abolished the appeal procedure, because there are still 10 days in which it can be used for appealing to the adjudicator, and judicial review is still available if there is a problem with the legality of any application. However, it seems eminently sensible that every reasonable effort should be made to shorten the queue in the area in which it will do least harm.
I quite agree with Opposition Members that the system must not prejudice an applicant's right to be properly considered. We have the assurance of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), and other Home Office Ministers that applications will not be prejudiced in any way. It is also obvious that an application from a listed country is not going to be limited in any sense prior to the point at which it is granted or refused. Applications will be fully considered, and every aspect of the arguments will be taken into account.
It does not seem to me to matter a jot whether there is or is not any presumption when an applicant comes from a suspect country, so long as the burden of proof does not change—and the burden of proof is not changing now.
While I was considering that point, I heard the preposterous argument—made in support of the Opposition's claim—that someone who was a friend and
712
supporter of the Prime Minister of Pakistan's father should want to come here as an asylum seeker, running from the daughter.
It is the same party, and has the same traditions. I do not think that there are many people, if any, who, having supported the Bhutto regime and opposed the ul-Haq regime, run away from the Bhutto regime, would come to this country having run away from the daughter. If there is any such person, for any reason, I am satisfied that the grounds for his or her application will be properly arid sensibly considered.
There was a long rant from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I do not share Opposition Members' view in this debate that the Government's intention is to screw down and make totally impossible genuine asylum applications from people from those seven countries.
I should have liked to hear Opposition Members—whether Liberal Democrat or Labour Members—tell us that they are genuinely trying to assist with our asylum procedures, to make them more effective and efficient. Not once did we hear any suggestion that they might have in the alternative on how to speed up the process. If the Opposition parties want to oppose the scheme that we are proposing for speeding up—as far as we reasonably can—the asylum process, it is incumbent on them to offer in return a practicable and acceptable alternative. Clearly they cannot do so, and their opposition must fail.
We are all agreed that decent and justifiable asylum seekers should have the right of asylum. In the name of all that is sensible in asylum policy in this country, we must join together and do what we can to make our system more efficient and effective. This is one such measure. Those who object to it only make themselves look stupid.
11.31 pm
Mr. Max Madden: If a contradiction of what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has just said is necessary, we need only remind ourselves that, as we speak, preparations are under way in west London to open a tent city to provide temporary accommodation to asylum seekers—including many children—who are now so destitute that they have no means of survival. That fact has been brought to public attention, not only by reverses for the Government in the courts but by the speeches of the leaders of British Churches.
My hon. Friendthe Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) have made it very clear that a central part of the Geneva convention was a requirement that all asylum cases should be considered on an individual basis. However much the Government protest, it is very clear that the central purpose of this order is to erect a presumption that all applicants from these seven countries have an unfounded claim.
I have read very carefully the country assessments produced by the Home Office. In all fairness, I can say only that I found them to be completely inadequate. In many respects, they were quite pathetic, and they gave every appearance of being cobbled together by very junior officials over a very short period. Almost daily during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, I called for these documents to be made available, and I was

713
always told that they were being prepared. I wonder why it took so long to produce so little—although I shall not dwell on that point.
I should like to consider India specifically, and some quotes about India from the United States State Department. In March 1996, the State Department stated:
"There continue to be serious human rights abuses, despite extensive constitutional and statutory safeguards … abuses include extrajudicial executions and other political killings, torture and excessive use of force by security forces and separatist militants … torture, rape and deaths of suspects in police custody are widespread throughout India."
In 1996, Amnesty International found:
"Thousands of political prisoners were held without charge or trial under special or preventative detention laws … At least 100 people died in police and military custody, many as a result of torture."
The torture of detainees was described as "endemic in every state".
Finally, I draw again to the attention of the House the position in the Punjab, where 3,000 people have been cremated as unidentified and unclaimed bodies. The activist who tried to expose this, Mr. Jaswant Singh Kalra, remains a disappeared person.
I remember vividly my visits to the Punjab since 1990, during which I have interviewed literally hundreds of Sikhs. They gave me detailed accounts of the human rights abuses that they and their families had suffered. They are mirrored in the reports to which I have referred.
Much play is made in the Home Office documents of elections in the Punjab and elections in Kashmir. I do not believe that those elections should be any comfort to hon. Members, because it is clear that, in the elections in Kashmir, there has been unacceptable coercion. The refusal of the Indian Government to invite international observers to monitor those elections remains a matter of considerable concern.
I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made it clear that the next Labour Government would abolish the designated list—the white list—and would deal with all asylum claims properly and promptly. I remind the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) that the only way in which to do that is to ensure that proper staff and other resources are available, so that all asylum claims are dealt with fairly, justly and expeditiously.
I do not believe that the Home Office should rely on the poor-quality reports that we are considering tonight. I look forward to the next Labour Government establishing a human rights unit within the Foreign Office, which would advise the Government—
Mr. Kirkhope rose—
Mr. Madden: The unit would advise the Government on human rights issues around the world.
Mr. Kirkhope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Madden: I strongly suggest that the House should establish a Select Committee on human rights, so that it can advise the next Labour Government on human rights issues.
714
The order is the latest disgraceful instalment of restrictive legislation of enacted by this Government to deter those who have well-founded claims for asylum from seeking haven in this country. It will be part of the political epitaph that will be hung round the neck of this miserable Government in the dying days of this Parliament. We all look forward to an end to this miserable approach to a very serious human rights issue. I hope that the order will be defeated tonight, that it will be thrown out with the other miserable legislation that the Government have introduced over the past 17 years.
11.38 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: Is it not clear to the House this evening that the Government have been visited by their previous sins? When the Asylum and Immigration Bill was debated at its various stages, the Government claimed that there was a major problem with illegal immigration. Yet, on every occasion that they were challenged by Committee members from all parties, the Government were unable to produce any evidence or figures to justify that claim. Indeed, one of the reasons that they gave for involving employers in the tracking of illegal immigrants was that they were unable to make any estimation of the problem that they claimed existed.
The Government have said that they could meet their international obligations under the Geneva convention and the European convention on human rights. I do not understand—and I do not think that the British people will understand—how the Government can say that each case will be dealt with on its merits when there is one system for the seven countries named this evening, and another for asylum claimants from other parts of the world.
Are we to believe that immigration officers faced with two different systems will use the same presumptions in dealing with each case on its merits? I put it to the House that that is not the case, and immigration department officials have made that point to me. They know that there are other ways to improve efficiency and to get people through the system that do not involve this ridiculous procedure.
Do not the Government know that their proposals will not work? Mr. Justice Glidewell stated in his report that he did not believe that the proceedings for dealing with asylum cases would be speeded up, because he knows—as do most lawyers who deal with these matters—that further doubt in dealing with the cases will slow the system down. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) pointed out, people will inevitably seek judicial reviews to get justice and their rights, and that will clog up the system further.
The more one looks for legitimate motives, reason and logic in the 1996 Act and the order, the more one fails to find them. One must then remember what the Conservative candidate for Cambridgeshire South-West said when he was head of the research department—that the Act and the order had nothing to do with efficiency, and certainly nothing to do with fairness, but were examples of the Conservatives playing a race card that they think—I believe, erroneously—will assist them in the general election.
The Government could not justify the Bill or the Act, and I do not believe that they can justify the order. The same contradictions are apparent. As my hon. Friend the

715
Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, the Foreign Secretary himself has acknowledged, in correspondence with the chairman of the Conservative party, that, together with other EU Foreign Secretaries, representations are being made to the Pakistan Government about their failure to uphold human rights for the Ahmadi community. If they cannot uphold human rights in their own country, why should we put them on a so-called "safe list"?
I do not believe that this order should be passed tonight, but if it is, it will not be long before this House, on a negative resolution, has to consider Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, Zaire and the other countries where the same level of rejections is apparent, as the Minister pointed out in relation to the seven countries this evening. I do not believe that this order has any support in this country. The Economist called the Bill "a nasty little Bill", and this is a nasty little order that should be thrown out this evening.
11.43 pm
Miss Widdecombe: There has not been a single speech from Opposition Members tonight that has not revealed a profound misunderstanding of these orders.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Widdecombe: Nor has there been any appreciation, or any attempt at appreciation, by the Opposition of the difference between acknowledging that there may be some violations of human rights and some dangers facing some people within a country and invalidating the general assessment of a country as largely safe.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Miss Widdecombe: I—
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Corbyn: I was not sure she had heard me.
Miss Widdecombe: I think the whole House heard the hon. Gentleman. There is, however, a difference between not being heard and simply being ignored, which is what happened to the hon. Gentleman.
Two sensible questions were asked in the debate, both by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) raised the question of compliance costs. The purpose of the order is not to add to costs but to reduce them, so the situation does not arise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) asked me once again to make it clear that cases would be considered on their merits, and that the mere fact that a country was designated would not automatically mean that everybody applying from that country was refused.
716
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave us a long treatise on the state of Pakistan. Then, in great triumph, he referred to a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The hon. Gentleman is much attached to smoking letters and other things be believes to be of great importance. All that letter did was uphold our position. We have said that a country may be generally safe, but that does not mean that there are not pockets within it where there may be problems. Nor does it mean that people applying from that country will not be treated on their merits.
I turn next to the amazing contribution by the hon. And—I am told—learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He made an amazing blunder. He gave us an exposition of international conventions, his main thesis being that, because we treat applicants from some countries differently from others, we are therefore discriminating and in breach of article 3 of the refugee convention. That article is about refugees, not seekers of asylum. He failed to make that basic distinction. The order applies to those seeking to be recognised as refugees; the convention applies to those recognised as refugees.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made a similar blunder when he referred to article 13 of the European convention on human rights. He said that it prohibited discrimination in matters covered by the convention. It does; but that convention does not confer a right to asylum. He thus made a complete mess of it from start to finish. I am glad that he is not my lawyer, if that is how he understands basic conventions.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) made a tremendous contribution, despite an obvious handicap tonight. He admirably summed up what we are seeking to do. We are seeking to speed up the process so that genuine applicants may be heard in good time, their cases may be properly considered, and they may find the haven that they require. Unfounded applications, however, should be dealt with as efficiently as possible.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14B(1).
The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 236.

Division No. 215]

[11.48 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bendall, Vivian

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Alexander, Richard

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Body, Sir Richard

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Amess, David

Booth, Hartley

Arbuthnot, James

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ashby, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Bowis, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brandreth, Gyles

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Brazier, Julian

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Bright, Sir Graham

Baldry, Tony

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Bates, Michael

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Batiste, Spencer

Burns, Simon

Bellingham, Henry

Burt, Alistair

717

Butcher, John

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Butler, Peter

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Butterfill, John

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Carrington, Matthew

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cash, William

Hunter, Andrew

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Jack, Michael

Churchill, Mr

Jenkin, Bernard

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jessel, Toby

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Coe, Sebastian

Key, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Congdon, David

Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Conway, Derek

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knox, Sir David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Couchman, James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Cran, James

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

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

Legg, Barry

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Leigh, Edward

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Day, Stephen

Lidington, David

Devlin, Tim

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Dover, Den

Lord, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Luff, Peter

Dunn, Bob

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Durant, Sir Anthony

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Dykes, Hugh

MacKay, Andrew

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Elletson, Harold

McLoughlin, Patrick

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Malone, Gerald

Evennett, David

Mans, Keith

Faber, David

Marland, Paul

Fabricant, Michael

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Forman, Nigel

Mates, Michael

Forth, Eric

Merchant, Piers

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Mills, Iain

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

French, Douglas

Moate, Sir Roger

Fry, Sir Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Gale, Roger

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Gallie, Phil

Nelson, Anthony

Gardiner, Sir George

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gill, Christopher

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Gillan, Cheryl

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Norris, Steve

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Gorst Sir John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Page, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Paice, James

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Patchett, Terry

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hague, Rt Hon William

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Pawsey, James

Hampson, Dr Keith

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hannam, Sir John

Pickles, Eric

Hargreaves, Andrew

Porter, David (Waveney)

Harris, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Rathbone, Tim

Hawkins, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hawksley, Warren

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hayes, Jerry

Richards, Rod

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Riddick, Graham

Hendry, Charles

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Robathan, Andrew

Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Horam, John

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

718

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Trend, Michael

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Trotter, Neville

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Sims, Sir Roger

Viggers, Peter

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Walden, George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfieid)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Soames, Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Speed, Sir Keith

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Waterson, Nigel

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Watts, John

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Wells, Bowen

Spink, Dr Robert

Whitney, Ray

Spring, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Sproat, Iain

Widdecombe, Ann

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Willetts, David

Stephen, Michael

Wilshire, David

Stern, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Streeter, Gary

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Sumberg, David

Wolfson, Mark

Sweeney, Walter

Wood, Timothy

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Thomason, Roy

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Ainger, Nick

Clelland, David

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Allen, Graham

Coffey, Ann

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Connarty, Michael

Armstrong, Hilary

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Corbett, Robin

Ashton, Joe

Corbyn, Jeremy

Austin-Walker, John

Corston, Jean

Barnes, Harry

Cousins, Jim

Barron, Kevin

Cummings, John

Battle, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bayley, Hugh

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Dafis, Cynog

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Dalyell, Tam

Bell, Stuart

Darling, Alistair

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davidson, Ian

Bennett, Andrew F

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Berry, Roger

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Betts, Clive

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Blunkett, David

Denham, John

Boateng, Paul

Dewar, Donald

Bradley, Keith

Dixon, Don

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

Dobson, Frank

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Donohoe, Brian H

Burden, Richard

Dowd, Jim

Byers, Stephen

Etherington, Bill

Caborn, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Faulds, Andrew

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Fisher, Mark

Canavan, Dennis

Flynn, Paul

Cann, Jamie

Foster, Don (Bath)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Fraser, John

Chidgey, David

Fyfe, Maria

Chisholm, Malcolm

Galloway, George

Church, Judith

Gapes, Mike

719

George, Bruce

Keen, Alan

Gerrard, Neil

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

Godman, Dr Norman A

Kilfoyle, Peter

Godsiff, Roger

Kirkwood, Archy

Golding, Mrs Llin

Lewis, Terry

Gordon, Mildred

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Graham, Thomas

Livingstone, Ken

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McAllion, John

Grocott, Bruce

McAvoy, Thomas

Gunnell, John

McFall, John

Hain, Peter

McKelvey, William

Hall, Mike

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hanson, David

McLeish, Henry

Harman, Ms Harriet

McMaster, Gordon

Harvey, Nick

McNamara, Kevin

Henderson, Doug

McWilliam, John

Heppell, John

Madden, Max

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Maddock, Diana

Hinchliffe, David

Mahon, Alice

Hodge, Margaret

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hoey, Kate

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Home Robertson, John

Martlew, Eric

Hoon, Geoffrey

Maxton, John

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

Meacher, Michael

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Michael, Alun

Hoyle, Doug

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Milburn, Alan

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hutton, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Illsley, Eric

Morgan, Rhodri

Ingram, Adam

Morley, Elliot

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Mudie, George

Jamieson, David

Mullin, Chris

Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

Murphy, Paul

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

O'Neill, Martin

Jowell, Tessa

720

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spellar, John

Patchett, Terry

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Pearson, Ian

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Pendry, Tom

Steinberg, Gerry

Pickthall, Colin

Stott, Roger

Pike, Peter L

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Pope, Greg

Straw, Jack

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Thurnham, Peter

Radice, Giles

Timms, Stephen

Randall, Stuart

Tipping, Paddy

Raynsford, Nick

Touhig, Don

Reid, Dr John

Trickett, Jon

Rendel, David

Turner, Dennis

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Tyler, Paul

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Vaz, Keith

Rogers, Allan

Wallace, James

Rooker, Jeff

Walley, Joan

Rooney, Terry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wareing, Robert N

Rowlands, Ted

Watson, Mike

Ruddock, Joan

Welsh, Andrew

Sedgemore, Brian

Wicks, Malcolm

Sheerman, Barry

Wigley, Dafydd

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Short, Clare

Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Wise, Audrey

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Worthington, Tony

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

Wright, Dr Tony

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Snape, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Soley, Clive

Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. Eric Clarke.

Spearing, Nigel

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Asylum (Designated Countries of Destination and Designated Safe Third Countries) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I turn now to motion No. 3, which contains a small error. The words, "That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House", were inadvertently omitted from the end of the motion as printed on today's Order Paper. Therefore, the motion will be moved in the form in which it was tabled yesterday. Copies are available in the Vote Office, should hon. Members wish to refer to them.
12.1 am
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a)the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and

(b)the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
The principle of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill has been endorsed many times in the House. As hon. Members know, a great deal of work has been undertaken in this place in Standing Committee and in Select Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). It has also been subject to much scrutiny in another place. The purpose of the motion before the House today is simply to ensure that the Bill can be carried forward for further consideration in the next parliamentary Session and to ensure that the good work done here and in another place in improving the Bill since its introduction is not aborted.
12.2 am
Mr. Keith Bradley: The Opposition do not intend to delay either the House or the Bill tonight. We clearly support the motion that is before us and welcome the work that has been done on the Bill. We hope that, on its return, the Bill will move swiftly to a conclusion and receive Royal Assent. That will enable the work to be undertaken and completed as soon as possible—although, in view of the speed with which the Government have dealt with the Bill previously, I expect that a Labour Government will push it through to its conclusion.
12.3 am
Sir Teddy Taylor: As one of the 44 Members of Parliament who voted against the channel tunnel legislation on 5 June 1986 on the grounds that it would not pay and would be a dead loss, I think that the Government should listen to my views even at this late hour. Most of the other 44 hon. Members have either died or lost their seats in the intervening period.
My point is basic and simple: when the channel tunnel legislation was before the House, we were given the absolute assurance—it appeared in Hansard at the time—
722
that, as it was a dramatic commercial prospect, there was no question of any Government subsidy or contribution in relation to rail projects. The Minister will recall that some hon. Members said, that even if the tunnel were busy for seven days a week and 24 hours a day and the trains were packed all the time, there was no way it would be commercially viable.
Unfortunately, because the channel tunnel has proved to be such an appalling disaster, banks at home and abroad have lost a great deal of money and there is not the slightest prospect of the project paying its way. I am concerned that, when the Bill was discussed on 25 April, some hon. Members who obviously know a great deal claimed that there would be a Government contribution of £1.4 billion and that some assets worth considerably more would be handed over to London and Continental very cheaply. Is it proper, given the latest channel tunnel reorganisation of finances, which involves write offs and great losses to banks, to let the motion pass through the House without the equivalent of a Third Reading discussion? Should we not take into account the new circumstances of the reorganisation of the finances of the channel tunnel?
The Government may say that the new circumstances do not matter, but clear and specific assurances were given by the Minister responsible that there would be no question of any subsidy for rail projects in Kent and elsewhere. As it appears from Hansard that there are such payments, would it not be possible for some assurance to be given that it is lawful for these contributions to be made, given the clear and specific assurances that were given when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill was being discussed?
The Government may think that these considerations do not matter, but at the end of the day they surely must take into account that the great majority of the House voted for the Bill on the specific assurance that was given by Members, including Ministers, that the channel tunnel would be a remarkably successful financial project and that there was no question of Government finance, direct or indirect. It now seems, sadly, that Government finance will be involved.
12.6 am
Mr. David Chidgey: I welcome the Bill and wish to speed its passage through the House. However, I have two small points to put to the Minister. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Transport is sitting beside him. The Minister may recall that the right hon. Gentleman, when responding to me on 26 April, confirmed that the rail link would be able to carry piggy-back freight. I accept that he said that the main purpose of the rail link was to carry passengers, but he said that, by taking passenger services from existing rail lines, it would free up capacity in the existing network, which would be more suitably used by freight trains.
The Minister may recall that the Secretary of State made some play of the benefit to domestic passengers of reserving capacity on the rail link by virtue of eight domestic trains per hour in peak periods. It was claimed that the increase in overall capacity within the network would ease congestion in the network. The cost of the exercise has been reported to be £360 million in the form of a domestic capacity charge to preserve the eight train cars. That is in addition to £1.4 billion for the construction costs.

723
Is the Minister aware that Connex South-East, the train operating company that has inherited the relevant domestic paths, now says that it does not want them? It says that they are not economically viable because there are unlikely to be sufficient passengers wanting to use a local service through to St. Pancras. If that is the case—I hope that the Minister will say otherwise—the Government's arguments about freeing up capacity lie in shreds. The justification for public money advanced earlier by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) falls by the wayside. It would appear that putting forward £1.4 billion of public money for the construction costs plus £360 for the domestic service grant is basically flawed.
Unless domestic services are directed on to the rail link, how will capacity be found for freight train services from Europe on to what is admitted is an already congested existing network?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this debate must be fairly narrow because it relates to a carry-over procedure. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that he is advancing reasons why there should not be a carry-over, well and good. It seemed, however, that he was developing a general theme.
Mr. Chidgey: I think that I have made my point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
12.8 am
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Perhaps I might make my point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I say in answer to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that my constituents now take 50 minutes in commuting to London. The rail link will allow them from the Ebbsfleet international station to commute in only 19 minutes. I can assure him that there are thousands of people who would use the service.
My constituents view the Bill with mixed feelings, because they have suffered considerable blight since the project first appeared in 1988. The channel tunnel rail link will cause considerable environmental damage to my constituents in north-west Kent. However, the international station that is proposed for Ebbsfleet will be a catalyst for massive economic regeneration, and for that reason we would like to see an early decision on the Bill and want its enactment to take place during the next few weeks or months.
There are, however, outstanding issues that should be properly addressed, the principal one being Ashenhank woods—a major piece of ancient woodland in my constituency. If the current proposals, which have been considered in the House, by the Select Committee and in the other place, were to go through, they would have a major impact on the environmental record of the rail link, because geological studies have shown that the ground beneath that wood is made up of loose gravel and lignite, which would require the rail link to have a very wide cutting indeed, and that by definition means the devastation of the woodland.
Strong representations have been made to both Select Committees by Cobham parish council, the Woodland Trust and other environmental organisations. The Select Committee in the other place paid particular attention to the environment and in its interim report said:
724
"We recommend that the promoters start with the assumption that retained wall cuttings in Ashenhank Wood are the best option."
The promoter, Union Railways, has replied to the House of Lords Select Committee—I quote from its commentary on the preliminary decisions:
"The Promoters note that the Select Committee does not require construction of a tunnel beneath Ashenbank Wood. The Promoters undertake to require the nominated undertaker to look further at the potential benefits of some ground retaining measures in reducing the amount of land-take to the wood. The conclusions of the studies to date, which Gravesham Borough Council, English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Commission, and Kent County Council have accepted, is that another solution, a package of mitigatory and compensatory measures … is more promising."
That response is somewhat disingenuous. It refers to some ground-retaining measures and does not refer—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing somewhat the same path as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has had his little fling. He must now come back to the point.
Mr. Arnold: My point is that I hope that the House of Lords Select Committee will stick to its guns and to the decision that it has taken on behalf of the environment and for my constituents.
I have another brief point to make. The Minister of State is present. I ask him to accelerate the interdepartmental review of blight. Both Select Committees have expressed great sympathy for my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Winzar and Mrs. Smith, who have been very severely hit by the blight impact of this proposal. We want action, not words. I hope that my hon. Friend will do his utmost to speed up the process of the interdepartmental review.
12.12 am
Mr. Watts: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T Taylor) asked whether the Bill involved any subsidy to the channel tunnel. It is important that we distinguish between the tunnel and the rail link project. The Bill does not provide any subsidy to the channel tunnel itself in the ownership of Eurotunnel. It does provide some element of Government support towards the private finance initiative project as a whole, and that is in recognition of the benefits both to domestic and international travellers from the provision of this high-speed link.
That leads me to the point made by the hon. Member for—
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend not accept that, at column 1187 of the Official Report on 5 June 1986, a specific question was asked about rail links, and a clear, specific assurance was given that there was no question of any Government cash being used for rail links?
Mr. Watts: My recollection of the statutory position is that subsidy to the channel tunnel is prohibited, but if my hon. Friend will allow me I shall write to him with a more detailed answer than I can give him off the cuff tonight.

725
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about the domestic capacity. We have secured eight peak hour train paths and, as those will reduce journey times for Kent commuters by 30 minutes, it is inconceivable that they will not prove to be popular services.
As to who operates those services, the franchising director has said that the existing franchisee will have the opportunity to bid to operate them. But if the operator chose not to do so, the franchising director would offer them to other operators. I would be amazed if there was not intense competition for the right to run such premium services.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the rail link has to be capable of carrying freight, although it will be for the operator to decide whether he wishes to accept freight on the link. It is being built to a larger loading gauge than the rest of our network, so it should be capable of piggy-back.
As to the existing lines which will have capacity released, obviously a detailed engineering study would be required to identify whether modifications were needed for piggy-back traffic. However, as there is an active proposal for piggy-back services to start operation, I suspect that any such work will have been undertaken long before the rail link is up and running.
We are aware, because my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) has brought it to our attention so many times, of the importance of the proper treatment of Ashenbank woods. As my hon. Friend said, the Select Committee in another place expressed a strong preference for the design to start from a presumption of retained cuttings, and appropriate undertakings have been given by the promoters. As to whether I am right in believing that the undertakings are adequate for the purposes of the Select Committee in another place, I would rather wait to see the Select Committee's special report which is to be published tomorrow. If they are not, doubtless the Select
726
Committee will say so and there will then be the opportunity to take the matter further during the Report stage in another place and consideration in the Commons of Lords amendments.
When the departmental review of blight was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, he said in Standing Committee that we would expect an interim report from the working party in the autumn. As far as I am aware, that is still on course to be delivered. However, I understand the urgency that my hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Friends have pressed upon me in the past and we shall seek to deliver that as rapidly as we can.
With those few remarks I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session—

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or (in the case of the Standing Orders relating to Private Business) dispensed with in this Session or in the Session 1994–95, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That this House do meet on Thursday 17th October at half-past Nine o'clock. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Fishing (South-East)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]
12.17 am
Dr. Robert Spink: It is a privilege for me to speak tonight on behalf of the Essex fishermen and, in particular, 50 Essex fishing boats.
The boats operate essentially as a non-sector organisation and that results in some disadvantages compared with the generally more powerful producer organisations which operate from Britain's major fishing ports. The south-east has a strong fishing tradition and is now essentially a sole fishery, but other species are available and are fished from time to time. As the boats are non-sector, the fishermen receive their monthly quotas direct from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and therefore cannot develop any overall catch marketing strategy.
Another key disadvantage concerns decommissioning. Producer organisations retain their track record following decommissioning. But if a non-sector, south-east boat is decommissioned, its track record is submerged into the whole of the United Kingdom fleet. As things currently stand, the south-east would therefore lose that track record.
I turn to the topical question of the common fisheries policy, which was agreed in 1982. Its laudable key objectives were, first, to meet and protect the needs of coastal communities, fishermen and fisheries-related industries and, secondly, to protect and conserve sea fish stocks. Since the CFP's introduction, fishermen and fish-related industries of the south-east have been badly let down. The CFP is simply not working in their favour, and they feel betrayed by it.
As for conservation, fish stocks continue to be greatly threatened and damaged. Some have been effectively wiped out. One example is that North sea plaice have been devastated, removing one of the opportunities for south-east fishermen. Quota hoppers take 44 per cent. of plaice, which the 1982 agreement had clearly earmarked for the British industry. So there we have it—irrefutable evidence that the CFP is not meeting its key objectives. In a nutshell, most of the damage has been caused to fish stocks by foreign fishing operations.
Non-sector fishermen were delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister visited Leigh and Castle Point to listen carefully to their concerns. I am therefore delighted that he has found time in his busy schedule to reply to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who has done so much behind the scenes to help Essex fishermen, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and I met the Minister with local fishermen. The fishermen demanded action to resolve the problem of quota hopping. We see in today's news that the Minister is taking just that action. I congratulate him on his firm and just stand to reverse the law with a protocol in the revised Maastricht treaty.
Under Government proposals, it should be possible to limit the allocation of quotas to fishing boats that are owned by businesses operating in the United Kingdom, that have a crew made up of UK residents and that land a proportion of their catch into the UK for the benefit of
728
the UK processing industry. Those measures would effectively end quota hopping—and not a moment too soon.
Twenty-two per cent. of total UK tonnage of our offshore fleet is owned and operated by foreign interests. I know how much distress that causes to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), who has been such a stalwart fighter on behalf of his fishermen. The European Court of Justice has enfranchised the quota hoppers, and that cannot be right, as it was never the intention of the 1982 agreement that the British quota should be taken by foreign vessels. We should think carefully before sticking doggedly to an agreement that clearly fails to be in the interests of the people of the UK. One thing I do know: we have an excellent champion in my hon. Friend the Minister, and we congratulate him on tackling quota hopping and on meeting and listening carefully to our local fishermen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I ask the Government to go further if possible. We ask them, first, to improve quota management arrangements for the non-sector industry and, secondly, to secure exemption from quota for very small, traditionally built fishing boats. I know that the Minister may have in mind a figure of about 8 m. My local fishermen would prefer the exemption to apply to any boat below 10 m. There is a debate there and no doubt the Minister will listen carefully to what we say. Thirdly, I ask the Government to consider ways in which to enable a non-sector area to retain its track record after decommissioning, as the producer organisations currently do.
Perhaps more specifically for Leigh and Canvey, we ask the Minister to limit licences so that specific south-east fishing specialisations such as the cockle fishing industry can be protected, and to ensure that the European Union, in redistributing our own money to us under the PESCA fund, does so fairly for the benefit of Southend and Canvey. The PESCA fund gives help to communities affected by the decline of fishing industries. I understand that about £400,000 has been made available: it has been set aside for competitive bids between the Southend and King's Lynn travel-to-work areas. The fund should be used to provide the necessary hygiene, ice-making and fish-handling equipment and infrastructure at the point of landing, not only in Leigh and on Two Tree island, but on Canvey island.
Some 250 families in our area are dependent on the fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I are doing all that we can to assist those families; we know that their jobs are badly threatened by the current situation. We also know that my hon. Friend the Minister is fighting on their behalf. The families are a small, but worthy, honourable and loyal community. They are led by good people such as Mr. Godbold and Dave Spurgeon of the Little Haven Fishermen's Association. They deserve a better deal than that currently afforded them by the common fisheries policy. They are shrewd people. They know that Labour's shallow sham of a European policy would fail them miserably, on fishing as elsewhere.
The Labour party leader said that he would never be isolated in Europe, but our fishermen demand just that: they want isolation from the European vessels, particularly from the quota hoppers. Labour's European policy would finish off our fishing industry. A Labour Government would surrender to their European socialist brothers. They would run up the white flag on every one of our fishing boats. They

729
would have plenty of white flags to use after they had broken up the United Kingdom and destroyed the Union Jack. The white flag would be the new Labour Union Jack. But it should not come to that.
Mr. Elliot Morley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has introduced party politics, because he knows that many of the measures that he has been advocating tonight have been supported by the Opposition. That is particularly true of the calls for greater control over our own waters and giving inshore boats—which often fish in selective, environmentally friendly ways—some positive help in terms of quota allocation. Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, many of the reforms can be brought about only through the European Union and the Commission. The way to do that is to argue constructively, seek allies and advance progressively—not to stand on the sidelines without participating in the debate.
Dr. Spink: As we would all expect, the hon. Gentleman comes forward with warm words. But my constituents, particularly my fishermen, all know that the Labour party's instincts are to surrender everything to a federal Europe, not to protect and defend Great Britain—the Conservative party's instincts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I support my hon. Friend the Minister in seeking tough reforms of the CFP. The Government's policy of reform is absolutely correct and they are to be congratulated on it. But if progress with Europe is not made to the advantage of our fishing communities, we cannot stand by and let them sink—we cannot desert them. We may ultimately have to consider the example of the Norwegians who, outside the CFP, have a workable system based on national control within their own 200-mile limit. We could then apply our own conservation regime and control all vessels that fish our waters. That would require a special derogation from the free movement provisions of the treaty of Rome—notably article 52—at the current intergovernmental conference. I am delighted that that is high on the Government's list of priorities.
We all know that there is a serious question mark over the quality and stringency of control of some fishing boats. There is simply no effective catch data verification or control by some member nations. That cannot be allowed to continue.
The CFP rules are becoming more and more complex and are effectively criminalising an honourable group of British workers. That cannot be allowed to continue. We could maintain sensible co-operation with Europe, but a policy of equal access may simply prove unworkable. Europe itself is not working. What could be more senseless than paying huge subsidies to produce and store food, then destroy it, or to risk life to catch good fish, only to throw it overboard, polluting our seas? We need strong Conservative leadership and common sense that puts Britain first—the sort of leadership that my hon. Friends the Minister and the Members for South Hams and for Basildon have given on this fishing issue.
On 20 August, the excellent Canvey Island Times reported my hon. Friend the Minister's visit to our town. It stated:
730
"Leigh and Canvey fishermen said they were pleased with their meeting with the Minister".
They told me so as well. They trust the Minister. They trust the Government to defend their interests. They trust our instincts. Their trust is well placed.
12.29 am
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on allowing us the opportunity to debate these important matters. There is little doubt that he has been a champion of the local fishing industry. On 27 March I had the opportunity to raise this subject in another Adjournment debate. As a result, my hon. Friend the Minister agreed to attend what has been proved to be an historic meeting, which took place in July at Beambridge yacht club. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I were present, together with my hon. Friend the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Minister met a whole number of people and many famous families whose livelihoods depend on the cockle industry and on fishing generally. He learnt at first hand just how important fishing is to our particular part of Essex. Many of those fishermen have done much for this country, especially during the second world war.
It was a delight to myself and other colleagues that my hon. Friend the Minister attended the meeting bearing gifts. He listened very carefully to what the representatives had to say, and I believe that on every count he met their wishes. There is just one outstanding subject. He will recall looking at the Thames estuary and listening carefully to the points about the need for some extra funding for dredging the estuary. I wonder whether he has had time to consider that further.
Obviously, Conservative Members are very concerned about proposals to reduce the United Kingdom catch. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point was entirely right in what he said about the Labour party's stance on this issue. There is great duplicity on the subject. I very much hope that at the November meeting Britain will hold its ground and give no truck to the bureaucratic nightmare of a regional fishing policy, as advocated by the Liberal Democrats. The proposals would mean a veritable jungle of committees and bureaucracy, overseen by Brussels, with Britain allowed no say in the running of our industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and I hope to visit Europe before Christmas to meet the Fisheries Commissioner.
Mr. Anthony Steen: It is a waste of time.
Mr. Amess: I do not accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and myself intend to meet the lady, and we shall do our very best to put the case firmly. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for what he has done so far and for what he will do in future.
12.33 am
Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) for allowing me to make a few chosen comments in this

731
excellent Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on the quality of his speech, and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon on his excellent contribution, which we have come to expect from him. I speak from experience of the second largest fishing port in England and Wales, which is in Brixham in my constituency and, fortunately, shares well in the £500 million-worth of fish landed in this country each year.
Unfortunately, whether in the south-east or the south-west, millions of pounds are lost through quota hoppers. Of the UK's 20,000 fishermen, 4,000 are Dutch and Spanish. That may seem double Dutch—it is certainly hard to understand. It is by far the single most important issue for UK fishermen—it remains central to the common fisheries policy for all fishermen, whether they come from the south-east or the south-west. Quotas were given to individual countries by the European Union and were never intended to be tradeable commodities.
The UK fishing industry leads the way with technical conservation methods and in general has a good record of compliance with EU regulations, but every time Spanish fishermen are caught breaking the rules by trawling with the wrong net size or landing undersized fish while flying the red ensign, it is the British fishermen's reputation that is tarnished.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the Minister for Agriculture for their unstinting commitment to resolving the quota-hopping problem once and for all. I thank the Minister of State personally for coming to my constituency several times—he is always most welcome.
If Commissioner Bonino is not minded to help, we shall have to refuse to renew the common fisheries policy when it expires in the year 2002. Will the Minister say whether it is correct that if the fisheries policy is not renegotiated and in place by 2002, the position reverts to what it was pre-1973? Other countries are pinching nearly half of our fish quota. If the European Courts mean anything, they must ensure that justice is done and that our quota is handed back to us—and handed back fast.
12.35 am
Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) decided to focus attention on the concerns of the fishing industry in the south-east, because it gives me the opportunity to report to the House on the talks and meetings that I have had with fishermen from the area in recent months. If, in the time available, I cannot respond in detail to the various points raised by him and my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for South Hams (Mr. Steen), I shall of course write to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon was successful in securing a debate in March in which he set out the problems facing Essex and Thames estuary fishermen in particular. In that debate, he invited me to visit Leigh-on-Sea. I am pleased that I was able to take up his kind offer. In July I was pleased to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my hon. Friends the Members for
732
Basildon and for Castle Point. I was also able to combine that visit with a long-standing invitation to meet the inshore fishermen of Aldeburgh.
I found both visits extremely valuable, as they enabled me to have an additional insight into the operation of the non-sector fleets. I shall explain to the House in more detail what I mean by non-sector fleets and the problems that local fishermen have to face. Of course, I am determined to continue to meet fishermen from around the country. Indeed, in the coming months I shall have further talks with fishermen at ports as far apart as Harwich and Rye.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will know, and as I have made clear many times, my only concern is to secure the best possible deal for UK fishermen. That should be apparent from the outcome of yesterday's Fisheries Council in Luxembourg. A great deal of time was spent discussing technical conservation measures and the Commission's proposals for further reducing the size of our fleet. I made it clear that I could only accept conservation measures that were sensible and realistic and would command the respect of the UK fishermen. I also left fellow Fisheries Ministers in no doubt that I could not accept any further compulsory reduction in our fleet unless and until there was satisfactory progress on the issue of quota hoppers.
We have tabled our proposals before the intergovernmental conference and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister emphasised to other Heads of Government recently in Dublin, the national quota system in the common fisheries policy is designed to balance the need for fish conservation with a secure benefit for a member state's fishing community. There is a burning sense of injustice in Britain not only among fishermen but among people in general that the system of national quotas is being systematically undermined. We are determined to put that right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said, it is crazy that nearly a fifth of the quota designated for UK fishermen is being taken by foreign owners of foreign vessels that are foreign crewed and foreign skippered. It is a crazy situation, and it cannot be allowed to continue. Even more crazy—as my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said—is that those vessels are purportedly flying our flag, masquerading as UK fishermen when they are anything but UK fishermen. They are not even landing their catch in the UK, and bring no economic benefit to us whatsoever.
I think that all hon. Members agree that the common fisheries policy is far from perfect. As the House knows, however, the answer is not to run away from it but to work for improvement to make the policy effective and fair. I am determined to do that. Fish are a common resource that do not respect national boundaries. We conserve that resource by working together within a common framework.
We are determined to maintain the restrictions on fishing within our six and 12-mile limits. Those restrictions are effective and fully supported by the UK industry. Under the CFP, only UK vessels can fish within six miles of our shore, and that includes most of the inshore fishing industry in the south-east.
There are also restrictions on access by foreign vessels within our six to 12-mile limits, so that, off

733
Essex for example, only French and Belgian vessels—because of historic rights to access—can fish within those limits alongside our own fishermen. We are fully committed to maintaining the restrictions on access by foreign vessels within our six and 12-mile limits.
I am conscious that fishermen in Essex and the south-east are facing a difficult and challenging future. I am also aware that there is continuing unease about the way in which our quota management arrangements work. As I made clear to the House last March, we have sought to operate arrangements that are fair and equitable and to encourage fishermen, through producers' organisations, to take on daily responsibility for the management of quota allocations.
Over the past eight years, many fishermen have opted to join or form producers' organisations. There are now 19 such organisations, and together they account for more than 90 per cent. of the uptake of our quotas. They also represent some 60 per cent. of our over 10 m fleet, and a much bigger proportion of those vessels that actively target quota stocks.
At the same time, I realise and fully appreciate that the majority of fishermen from the south-east are not covered by the network of producers' organizations—that they are non-sector fishermen. When I visited Leigh-on-Sea in July, some fishermen expressed considerable interest in setting up a producers' organisation to manage quota allocations and to market fish caught by Thames estuary fishermen. I welcome that, and I am pleased to learn that initial approaches by local fishermen in Essex who want to form a producers' organisation have been made to the Ministry. I can assure the House that we shall do everything we can within the framework of the European Community's marketing regulations to advise those fishermen and to assist that initiative.
I must also emphasise that we have taken important steps over the years, and that we will continue to do so, to safeguard the position of those who continue to operate as non-sector fishermen. First, monthly catch limits are set in consultation with representatives of non-sector fishermen, and every human effort is made to keep fisheries open throughout the year.
Secondly, producers' organisations that want to manage quota allocations must do so for all fish stocks. That means that, in managing the non-sector allocations, the fisheries department is able to focus exclusively on the interests of fishermen who are not members of producers' organisations. Officials in my Department are continually seeking to protect the interests of non-sector fishermen, and to ensure that those interests are looked after fairly.
Thirdly, we have introduced underpinning for stocks of particular interest to non-sector fishermen, including North sea sole and cod. Those arrangements have operated for the past two years, and this year, for example, they have resulted in non-sector fishermen receiving an extra 691 tonnes of cod, which is equivalent to 38 per cent. of their allocation.
From my discussion with fishermen, there was a clear desire that the arrangements for underpinning should be
734
extended to other fish stocks. The quota management arrangements for 1997 are due to be discussed in Edinburgh at the beginning of November with representatives of all sides of the industry. I intend to propose that underpinning should be extended to North sea whiting and plaice, which are the remaining two quota stocks of particular interest to Thames estuary fishermen.
Underpinning also operates for the under 10 m fleet. For the past three years, those fishermen have received a guaranteed share of the UK's quota irrespective of whether they have been able to catch their full entitlement. There may, for example, have been bad weather or fish stocks may have failed to turn up on inshore grounds.
To further safeguard the interests of the inshore fleet, we amended our licensing rules earlier this year to check the future growth in the number of powerful vessels just under the 10 m limit. I am also pleased to report that, so far this year, it has not been necessary to close any fishery to the small inshore fleet, including the North sea sole fishery. I hope that I have demonstrated that within the tight quota constraints set by the Community and the need to take effective measures to conserve fish stocks, the interests of south-east fishermen are not being overlooked. I am determined to ensure that they are treated fairly.
May I reassure my hon. Friend that the track records of decommissioned vessels in the membership of producer organisations are not, in fact, retained by the POs. The track records of all decommissioned vessels, irrespective of the group to which they belong, are shared among the remainder of the fishing fleet. Thus when a PO vessel is decommissioned, the non-sector is able to benefit from its track record. Indeed, I am told that, over the years, this arrangement has generally favoured the non-sector because it has obtained a share of the usually larger track records of decommissioned PO boats.
In our consultations on the present decommissioning scheme, we invited comments on the proposal that fishermen should be allowed to retain the track record from decommissioned vessels, with a percentage of those track records being set aside for the non-sector. I have to say that, alas, the consultation exercise revealed little support for this proposal from fishermen in the south-east or from any part of the industry, including the non-sector, with the result that it was not included in the final scheme. However, as I made clear at Leigh-on-Sea, I am always ready to listen to further representations. I appreciate the frustrations of the non-sector and of Essex and south-east fishermen in particular. If we have any future decommissioning round and if the fishermen wish to put forward further proposals, I shall be very happy to consider them.
I fully appreciate the importance of the sole fishery to fishermen within the Thames estuary. Last year, sole accounted for just under one third of the value of the total fish landed into Essex ports. The remainder of their earnings comes from other stocks such as cod, bass, plaice, sprats, skate and rays. Such diversification

735
is essential; fishermen must avoid becoming over-dependent on a single stock.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of exempting inshore fishermen from the constraints of quota management. Within the present discussions in the Community on the next round of decommissioning, there is much talk about exempting coastal fishing boats—some Fisheries Ministers yesterday gave figures as high as 14 m—from the constraints of quota management. That will have to be discussed within the whole context of future fisheries management.
I fully understand the frustrations of, for example, Aldeburgh fishermen. Although they are fishing just off the Suffolk coast and can go out only when the weather
736
conditions are fine, they are caught up in the same quota management conditions as large North sea trawlers are.
In respect of my hon. Friend's concern about financial assistance, I am pleased to tell the House that £400,000—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the workings of the Serious Fraud Office; and if he will make a statement. [40554]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office continues to implement recommendations made in the Graham report and by the Davie group, including measures to rationalise its investigative function and to make the most efficient use of police resources. I have no plans for further reorganisation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the total number of magistrates' courts in each region, for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [39116]

  Mr. Streeter
  [pursuant to reply, 24 July 1996, c. 340]: The information requested is not collected centrally. Magistrates' courts are locally managed by magistrates' courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979.

  The extra time to answer this question afforded by the parliamentary adjournment has allowed officials to contact each of the 100 MCCs, and for the requested information to be collected. The cost of this exercise has exceeded the maximum limit set for answering parliamentary questions.

  The information requested is as follows:

  Magistrates courts' committee area

  The number of magistrates courts 1992 to 1996

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Avon

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Barking

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Barnet

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Barnsley

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bedfordshire

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  16

  15

  15

  13

  13

  Bexley

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Bolton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Brent

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bromley

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Bury

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Calderdale

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Cheshire

  10

  10

  10

  9

  10

  828

  Magistrates courts' committee area

  The number of magistrates courts 1992 to 1996

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  City of London

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cleveland

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Cornwall

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Coventry

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Croydon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  12

  12

  12

  10

  10

  Derbyshire

  13

  13

  12

  12

  12

  Devon

  18

  18

  18

  18

  17

  Doncaster

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dorset

  12

  12

  12

  11

  11

  Dudley

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Durham

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Dyfed

  15

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Ealing

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  East Sussex

  9

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Enfield

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Essex

  13

  13

  13

  13

  12

  Gateshead

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  11

  11

  9

  9

  9

  Gwent

  11

  11

  10

  10

  9

  Hampshire

  16

  13

  12

  10

  10

  Haringey

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Harrow

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Havering

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hereford and Worcester

  10

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Hertfordshire

  10

  10

  9

  9

  9

  Hillingdon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hounslow

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Humberside

  17

  17

  17

  17

  10

  Inner London

  20

  19

  19

  19

  17

  Isle of Wight

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kent

  17

  16

  16

  15

  14

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Knowsley

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  16

  14

  13

  13

  13

  Leeds

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Leicestershire

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Lincolnshire

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  Liverpool

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Manchester

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Merton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Newham

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Norfolk

  11

  10

  10

  10

  8

  North Tyneside

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Wales

  24

  24

  24

  21

  19

  North Yorkshire

  19

  19

  18

  17

  17

  Northamptonshire

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Northumberland

  6

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Oldham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Powys

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Redbridge

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Rochdale

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  Rotherham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Salford

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Sandwell

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Sefton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Sheffield

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shropshire

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  Solihull

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Somerset

  12

  6

  6

  6

  6

  South Wales

  9

  9

  8

  8

  8

  South Tyneside

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  St. Helens

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Staffordshire

  15

  14

  14

  13

  13

  Stockport

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Sunderland

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Surrey

  11

  11

  10

  10

  10

  829

  Magistrates courts' committee area

  The number of magistrates courts 1992 to 1996

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Sutton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Tameside

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Trafford

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Walsall

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Waltham Forest

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Warwickshire

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  West Glamorgan

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  West Riding Metropolitan

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  West Sussex

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  Wigan

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  11

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Wirral

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Wolverhampton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  576

  537

  526

  510

  491

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates' courts are,(a) administered by an office in a different area, and (b) deal with custody cases in another area; what were the figures five years ago; and if he will make a statement. [39072]

  Mr. Streeter
  [holding answer 24 July 1996]: The information requested is not collected centrally. Magistrates' courts are locally managed by magistrates' courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979.

  The extra time to answer this question afforded by the parliamentary adjournment has allowed officials to contact each of the 100 MCCs, and for the requested information to be collected. The cost of this exercise has exceeded the maximum limit set for answering parliamentary questions.

  Area has been taken to mean petty sessional division and emergency arrangements or Saturday morning rota sittings have not been included.

  The information requested follows:

  Magistrates court's committee area

  Magistrates courts administered by an office in a different area

  Number of courts dealing with custody cases in a different area

  1992

  1996

  1992

  1996

  Avon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Berkshire and Oxfordshire

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  4

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  8

  6

  —

  —

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  830

  Magistrates court's committee area

  Magistrates courts administered by an office in a different area

  Number of courts dealing with custody cases in a different area

  1992

  1996

  1992

  1996

  Cumbria

  8

  6

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  2

  2

  —

  1

  Devon

  4

  3

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  7

  7

  —

  —

  Dudley

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  9

  6

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  6

  5

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Gwent

  8

  6

  10

  8

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Haringey

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worecester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  5

  3

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  11

  6

  —

  —

  Inner London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  5

  9

  —

  —

  Kingston Upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  2

  4

  —

  —

  Leeds

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  3

  5

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire

  6

  7

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  3

  2

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales

  9

  7

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  5

  7

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  5

  5

  4

  4

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powus

  4

  4

  6

  6

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sefton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  4

  5

  —

  —

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  1

  —

  —

  South Wales

  1

  1

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  5

  8

  —

  2

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  2

  3

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  2

  3

  —

  —

  West Riding

  831

  Magistrates court's committee area

  Magistrates courts administered by an office in a different area

  Number of courts dealing with custody cases in a different area

  1992

  1996

  1992

  1996

  Metropolitan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Wigan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  6

  1

  —

  —

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  161

  148

  21

  26

  Where a section shows no value the answer was none.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Productivity
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the trends in manufacturing productivity in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states of the European Union in each of the first three quarters of 1996. [40549]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  Figures on UK manufacturing output per person employed are published by the Office for National Statistics in table 4.7 of "Economic Trends", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. They are also available on the central shared database, which can be accessed from the Library. The figures up to August 1996 will be released on Wednesday 16 October. Comparable figures for the other member states of the European Union are not yet available.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sum was received by the Government from the sale of British Coal Enterprises. [40422]

  Mr. Page
  The sale of British Coal Enterprise is a matter for British Coal. I understand that the corporation has not yet completed the sale of all the activities of BCE.

  Research Establishments
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade when he will place further memoranda concerning the prior options reviews of public sector research establishments in the Library. [41075]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have placed in the Library of the House the memorandum setting out the rationale underlying the decisions concerning ADAS which were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18 July.

  Businesses
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his plans for reforming Government support for business. [41076]

  Mr. Lang
  We are today launching two new challenges. I am also confirming a major simplification of central schemes.
  832
  Both challenges are designed to enhance the competitiveness of businesses, either through helping local partnerships to design and deliver high quality business support to firms—particularly smaller firms in their area—or through projects to improve the business performance of specific sectors of industry.

  The local challenge will build on business link partnerships. It will reinforce the opportunities offered to small firms to access support in the co-ordinated way that these partnerships provide. It will encourage cross-partnership bids where these add value.

  The sector challenge will bring together in one place the majority of Government funding for sectoral activity. it covers activities designed to have a broad impact on the competitiveness of sectors wherever they are located in the United Kingdom, including innovative approaches to export promotion.

  A radical streamlining of DTI business support will reduce the number of separate schemes from 140 to fewer than 25 central programmes plus the two new challenges.

  Further announcements in the coming weeks will set out in more detail our plans on specific schemes aimed at helping smaller firms to win through exporting, foresight the information society, and so on.

  The Government have agreed criteria under which all current or potential new central schemes will be reviewed. Such reviews will be an on-going process with annual reports back to Ministers. We are committed to changing the emphasis of support away from central towards local and sectoral design and delivery. Over time, central schemes will become the exception, not the rule.

  We are also committed to involving businesses and business support organisations more directly in deciding which schemes should continue. In future, we will consult businesses and business support organisations as a matter of course before taking decisions. I am pleased therefore to welcome the new consultative group being established by the business link partners to provide their input into this exercise.

  Business told us that it wanted simpler, more accessible and more flexible support. The proposals announced today delivery just that.

  I am placing copies of the local and sector challenge bidding guidelines in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for each member state of the European Community the rates levied by value added tax on food in shops, household fuel, children's clothing, books, newspapers and magazines, public transport, water and sewage services, newly constructed homes, second-hand homes and the standard of tax most recently adopted; when the current VAT agreement expires; and what remunerations have been received from the Commission concerning its services or continuation for any stated period. [41410]
  833
  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: The information about VAT rates is set out in the table. The current EC VAT agreement (the sixth VAT directive), and so the provisions governing the VAT rates

  VAT rates on various goods and services in the EC

  Percentage rate of VAT

  Homes

  Member state

  Foods in shops

  Household fuel

  Children's clothing

  Books

  Newspaper and magazines

  Public transport

  Water and sewage supplies

  New

  Second-hand

  Standard rate

  Austria

  10

  20

  20

  10

  10

  10

  20

  20

  Exempt

  20

  Belgium

  6

  121

  21

  6

  6

  6

  221

  12

  Exempt

  21

  Denmark

  25

  25

  25

  25

  325

  4Exempt

  5Exempt

  25

  Exempt

  25

  France

  65.5

  20.6

  20.6

  5.5

  2.1

  5.5

  720.6

  20.6

  Exempt

  20.6

  Germany

  7

  15

  15

  7

  7

  815

  915

  Exempt

  Exempt

  15

  Greece

  8

  18

  18

  4

  4

  8

  1018

  18

  Exempt

  18

  Ireland

  110

  12.5

  0

  0

  12.5

  Exempt

  21

  12.5

  Exempt

  21

  Italy

  1210

  1310

  16

  4

  4

  1410

  19

  1519

  19

  19

  Luxembourg

  3

  1612

  3

  3

  3

  15

  15

  Exempt

  Exempt

  15

  Netherlands

  6

  17.5

  17.5

  6

  6

  6

  1717.5

  17.5

  Exempt

  17.5

  Portugal

  1817

  1917

  17

  5

  5

  5

  2017

  21Exempt

  Exempt

  17

  Spain

  227

  16

  16

  4

  4

  7

  7

  16

  Exempt

  16

  Sweden

  12

  25

  25

  25

  6

  12

  25

  25

  Exempt

  25

  UK

  230

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Exempt

  17.5

  1 A reduced rate of 12 per cent, applies to coal and peat.

  2 A reduced rate of 6 per cent, applies to the supply of water.

  3 A zero rate applies to magazines.

  4 Transport on regular services is exempt, but on chartered buses is taxable at 25 per cent.

  5 Exemption only applies to water in connection with the letting of a house or premise; otherwise the standard rate of 25 per cent, applies.

  6 Sweets, chocolate, margarine and vegetable fat are subject to the standard rate of 20.6 per cent.

  7 A reduced rate of 5.5 per cent, applies to sewage services.

  8 A reduced rate of 7 per cent, applies to transport which takes place within a town or where the distance does not exceed 50 km.

  9 A reduced rate of 7 per cent, applies to supplies of water.

  10 A reduced rate of 8 per cent, applies to sewage services.

  11 Chocolates, sweets, biscuits etc. are taxable at 12.5 per cent.

  12 A reduced rate of 4 per cent, applies to basic foodstuffs such as bread and pasta; a rate of 16 per cent, applies to items such as lobsters and oysters.

  13 A 16 per cent, rate applies to coal.

  14 Transport between towns which are less than 50 km apart is exempt.

  15 A reduced rate of 4 per cent, applies to certain social housing.

  16 A 12 per cent, rate applies to wood, oil and coal.

  17 A reduced rate of 6 per cent, applies to the supply of water.

  18 A reduced rate of 12 per cent, applies to unprepared foodstuffs.

  19 A reduced rate of 5 per cent, applies to electricity and oil.

  20 A reduced rate of 5 per cent, applies to the supply of water.

  21 A reduced rate of 5 per cent, applies to certain constructions of housing by building co-operatives.

  22 A reduced rate of 4 per cent, applies to certain basic foodstuffs.

  23 The standard rate of 17.5 per cent, applies to confectionery, crisps, ice cream, chocolate etc.

  Tax Secrecy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to remove tax secrecy from(a) the Channel Islands, (b) the Isle of Man, (c) Gibraltar and (d) Caribbean dependencies; and if he will enter into discussions with the authorities of such places about the prevention of drug trafficking and fraud. [40368]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: Arrangements already exist for the exchange of information with the Channel Islands and other dependencies, where appropriate, for taxation purposes, including the detection and prevention of fraud. Legislation has been in place for some time to tackle the avoidance of tax through the use of off-shore concerns, and if the Government become aware of any significant new risk in this area, further legislation will be considered.
  834
  detailed in the table, have no expiry date. In the absence of any unanimous agreement upon 'definitive' VAT regime, the existing provisions continue to apply automatically and without time limit.

  The Government take a prominent role in advising these territories on suitable legislation concerning the prevention of drug trafficking and fraud. All have drug money laundering legislation and some have extended these provisions to cover all serious crimes. Many have statutory gateways which allow information to be passed to overseas regulators. These measures have removed many obstacles caused by secrecy provisions, and further work is continuing to improve the exchange of information with these territories.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage change in real personal disposable income(a) overall, (b) of persons in employment and (c) of persons not in employment, for each year since 1979. [40364]
  835
  Mrs Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: Information on real personal disposable income at 1990 prices is published annually in the United Kingdom National Accounts, the Blue Book, and is also held on the Office for National Statistics database. These sources are available in the House of Commons Library. It is not possible to calculate the proportion of real personal disposable income which goes to persons in employment and to persons not in employment.

  However, information at current prices is available on sources of household incomes in table 4.9 of the Blue Book; and analyses of incomes, only at household level, based on the family expenditure survey are also available—results are published annually in the relevant editions of "Family Spending" which are available in the Library.

  The percentage change in overall real personal disposable income at 1990 prices in each year since 1979 is:

  1979: 5.7

  1980: 1.5

  1981: -0.8

  1982: -0.5

  1983: 2.7

  1984: 3.7

  1985: 3.2

  1986: 4.4

  1987: 3.7

  1988: 6.2

  1989: 4.2

  1990: 1.9

  1991: 0.0

  1992: 2.0

  1993: 1.8

  1994: 1.2

  1995:3.0

  Incomes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently earning less than £3 per hour; and what was the number in 1991. [40142]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The labour force survey shows that, in spring 1996, there were 1.74 million people in Great Britain earning less than £3 per hour. The labour force survey did not collect earnings information prior to 1992.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new cases of glaucoma were detected in each of the last five years. [40573]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Statistics on glaucoma are not collected centrally.

  Oral Cancer
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new cases of oral cancer were detected(a) in each regional health authority and (b) nationally in (i) 1991 and (ii) 1992. [40572]
  836
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The number of new cases of oral cancer detected in(a) each regional health authority and (b) nationally in 1991 are shown in the table. Data for 1992 are not yet available.

  Oral Cancer Registrations (ICD1 codes 140–149 excluding 142 by regional health authority and constituent countries of the United Kingdom.

  19912

  Number

  Northern

  221

  Yorkshire

  227

  Trent

  249

  East Anglian

  110

  North-west Thames

  207

  North-east Thames

  175

  South-east Thames

  199

  South-west Thames

  142

  Wessex

  194

  Oxford

  124

  South Western

  155

  West Midlands

  320

  Mersey

  189

  North Western

  249

  England

  2,761

  Wales3

  185

  Scotland

  466

  North Ireland

  103

  UK

  3,515

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  2 All data are provisional, except those for Scotland.

  3 1990 data; 1991 are not yet available.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. [40951]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I attended meetings of the IMF's interim committee and the IMF/World bank development committee in Washington on 29 and 30 September, and the IMF/World bank annual meeting on 1–2 October, where progress was made on several issues of importance for the world economy and for developing countries. As usual, the IMF and World bank meetings were preceded by meetings of the G7 and G10 finance Ministers arid central bank governors. I also attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Bermuda on 24 to 26 September.

  One of my top priorities for these meetings was the reduction in debt of the poorest, most indebted countries. I first launched an initiative on this subject at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Valletta two years ago. This year the IMF/World bank launched their own proposals in response to my initiative. These proposals were discussed in Bermuda and in Washington. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that they were endorsed. All other Ministers in the development committee joined me in calling for implementation to begin for the first potentially eligible countries before the end of 1996.

  All major creditors—the IMF, World bank, and Paris Club—confirmed in Washington that they would play their part in delivering debt sustainability. The World bank will do so through the creation of trust funds. It has already allocated $500 million, and expects to contribute

  837
  up to $2 billion in all. The IMF has undertaken to provide a combination of grants and loans which have longer maturities and grace periods, thereby effecting a substantial reduction in the value of its share of debt. The Paris Club of official bilateral creditors has agreed to go beyond Naples terms, on a case-by-case basis, up to 80 per cent. reduction of present value of claims. This is something the British Government have been advocating for many years, since it was first proposed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1990.

  I regard agreement on this initiative, which the Prime Minister and I have advocated at successive international meetings over the last two years, as a major achievement. In the timescale of international economic diplomacy, two years from my first outline proposal to worldwide agreement on implementing a detailed scheme is good going. I am grateful to those who have worked to help us get there, including the voluntary organisations which have kept up the international pressure for action, as well as the officials of the international organisations who have helped put the pieces in place. We now have a scheme that offers real hope to some of the world's poorest countries. I will continue to work to ensure it is implemented in a flexible and commonsense way by the institutions concerned, to give countries that qualify an early and lasting exit from unsustainable debt.

  I will also work to try to ensure that poor countries do not slip back into unsustainable debt, and that all developing countries have the best possible access to work markets and flows of private sector capital. I was therefore glad that, at the Commonwealth Finance Minister's meeting in Bermuda, Ministers agreed on the need for donors and creditors to discourage the financing of unproductive spending in developing countries. At Bermuda also, Ministers stressed the importance of an open, rules-based and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system. Ministers also discussed the rapid expansion in private capital flows, acknowledging their importance in promoting economic growth and investment. I pointed out the need for financial sector reform and liberalisation of the capital account. At my request, a small working group of Finance Ministry officials from Commonwealth countries will now study the role of national and international policies in encouraging private capital flows for investment.

  Following another UK initiative, Ministers in Bermuda endorsed the new and updated 40 recommendations agreed by the financial action task force at the end of June 1996, which set out the measures countries should take to combat money laundering. In addition, we approved the publication of a comprehensive set of guidelines, prepared by the Commonwealth Secretariat, to help Commonwealth countries with the practical implementation of their anti-money-laundering strategies. Ministers also supported the establishment of regional groups—modelled on the Caribbean financial action task force—to enable Commonwealth countries to review their progress in implementing anti money laundering measures. We also urged the IMF and the World bank to take full account of the need for countries to maintain effective anti-money laundering systems in their surveillance activities and in their provision of technical assistance.
  838
  At the G7 meeting in Washington, we reviewed economic and financial market developments in the world economy and assessed the outlook for the G7 economies. In G7 countries, inflation remains at low levels, efforts are being made to reduce fiscal deficits, and external imbalances have receded. We agreed that policies should continue to be directed at sustaining non-inflationary growth and reduction of imbalances. We reaffirmed our standing commitment to co-operate closely in the exchange markets. At the request of my US and Canadian colleagues, we had a useful discussion about progress towards EMU.

  We met representatives of the European Commission and the senior Russian economic team on developments in the Russian economy and progress on economic reform. We agreed that Russia has made significant progress in the area of macroeconomic stabilisation. We also agreed on the importance of strengthening Russia's fiscal balances in consolidating the gains it has made to date, and on the importance of adhering to the structural reform programme agreed with the IMF.

  We reviewed the progress achieved and the considerable work underway to implement the initiatives arising from the last year's Halifax summit, and this discussion was continued in the G10 and interim committee.

  The G10 discussed issues relating to international monetary and financial stability. We welcomed the progress that has been made towards the establishment of the new arrangements to borrow. I emphasised the benefits these arrangements would bring, not only through increasing the resources available to the IMF in the case of a threat to the stability of the international monetary system, but also in involving in the facility a wider range of countries including some of the emerging market economies, recognising their interest in the stability of the international financial system.

  At the IMF interim committee, I stressed the importance of freedom of capital movement, and the benefits for countries that have not already done so of making careful progress in dismantling their remaining capital controls. I called on the IMF to help its members in this process, and I launched a proposal to bring the IMF's articles up to date to recognise its role in this area. Other Ministers supported my call to the IMF to revisit its role in relation to capital liberalisation, and to consider whether its present articles should be revised to reflect and promote the fund's proper role in encouraging capital liberalisation and helping member countries reap the full benefits of international capital flows. The Interim Committee agreed to discuss this at its next meeting in the spring.

  We also agreed a new declaration—an update to the one first agreed in Madrid two years ago—on the partnership for sustainable global growth. This included calls to achieve budget balance, improve fiscal transparency, tackle corruption, prevent money laundering, encourage freedom of capital movements, and ensure the soundness of banking systems.

  In the development committee, I stressed the importance of trade and development, and in particular giving poor countries the opportunity for growth through access to world markets. Many Ministers joined me in

  839
  support for the President of the World Trade Organisation's proposals that developed countries should provide access duty-free to all the exports of least developed countries.

  Copies of my speeches to the Commonwealth Finance Minsters' meeting, the interim and development committees, the annual meeting, and the communiques of those meeting and the G10 Finance Ministers' meeting, have been placed in the Library of the House. The G7 did not on this occasion issue a communiqué.

  Public Bodies
  Mr Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines have been issued to non-departmental public bodies in relation to the implementation of local pay delegation, following the decision to end the previous pay arrangements for such organisations. [40133]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Departments were given delegated responsibility for the pay systems of their civil service staff outside the senior civil service from 1 April 1996. This change did not directly affect non-departmental public bodies—they already had responsibility for their pay systems, subject to Treasury approval or consent in many, but not all, cases, and do not generally employ civil servants. However many NDPBs have pay systems which are analogous to or closely follow those of the civil servants in the sponsor department. As Departments introduce pay systems tailored to their particular requirements, NDPBs will need to consider what changes are appropriate for them. The Treasury has issued guidance to help departments think through the many issues involved, and Departments are free to show this to their NDPBs if they decide that is helpful.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further assistance he proposes to support local authority local waste recycling schemes; and if he will make a statement. [38365]

  Mr. Gummer
  The measures and policy framework to assist local recycling are set out in the White Paper "Making Waste Work".

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding energy conservation. [38367]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly receive a wide range of representations on this subject.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the application of the area cost adjustment on Local government funding. [38368]
  840
  Mr. Gummer
  In our consultation, all four local government organisations have expressed reservations about implementing this review and have asked for further work. I will consider the representations after my meeting with them tomorrow.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to reform the area cost adjustment. [38374]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We will be discussing the review of the area cost adjustment with the local authority associations tomorrow at the consultative council on local government finance. Once we have taken their views, we will decide how to proceed. [38374]

  Sewage
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of sewage outfalls into rivers or the sea receive tertiary treatment. [38369]

  Mr. Gummer
  Fourteen.

  Coastal Management
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the management of coastal areas. [38370]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We recognise that coastal areas are an important resource and have taken a number of steps to promote their effective management. In England, these include creation of a national coastal forum, publication of policy guidelines for the coast and—later this month—the issue of a best practice guide to coastal management.

  Pollution Report
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the latest report of the royal commission on environmental pollution. [38371]

  Mr. Gummer
  We welcome the royal commission's 19th report on the "Sustainable Use of Soil." We are considering all its recommendations carefully and expect to publish a formal response to the report by the end of the year.

  Local Government Conduct
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent studies he has made of the conduct of local government. [38372]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have made no recent studies of the conduct of local government. However, the Nolan committee announced in June that its third study will examine aspects of conduct in local government in England, Scotland and Wales.

  London Governance
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the governance of London. [38373]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The current arrangements serve our capital city and the nation extremely well.
  841

  Wetlands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary Environment what progress he has conservation of wetlands in Europe. [38375]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government have broadly welcomed the policy set out in the European Commission's communication on the wise use and conservation of wetlands. Many positive steps are already being taken in Europe to conserve wetlands under EU directives and international conventions. The UK makes a major contribution. For example, we have listed 107 internationally important wetlands under the Ramsar convention. Many wetland sites have also been classified as special protection areas under the birds directive. Other sites have been submitted to the Commission as candidate special areas for conservation under the habitats directive, and will be protected in the interim pending formal designation. [38375]

  Housing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes are under construction and how many have been built during the last 12 months; and what were the equivalent figures in 1978–79. [38376]

  Mr. Curry
  It is estimated that 146,000 dwellings were completed in England during the 12 months to August 1996 and that 197,000 were under construction by the end of August. In comparison, some 227,000 dwellings were completed in the financial year 1978–79 and there were 339,000 under construction at the end of March 1979. [38376]

  Global Warming
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new responses he plans to combat global warming(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) via international initiatives. [38377]

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken by his Department to meet its objectives in respect of carbon dioxide reductions. [38378]

  Mr. Clappison
  I am pleased to say that the UK is on target to meet the Rio commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 and we expect carbon dioxide emissions to be 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels. This achievement reflects the impact of measures set out in the UK climate change programme and the progress report on carbon dioxide emissions.

  However, there is no room for complacency. The UK is one of only a handful of states which will meet the Rio commitment and, by the next climate change conference in December 1997, we need to have agreed significant reductions in emissions beyond 2000. That is why I have called on other states to agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 to 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.
  842

  Integrated Regional Office, Yorkshire
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure democratic accountability of integrated regional office officials in Yorkshire. [38379]

  Mr. Curry
  As head of the Government office for Yorkshire and the Humber, the regional director remains accountable to each of my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Transport and to me for the delivery of our particular policies and programmes.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment how many tenants have exercised the right to buy in the last 12 months. [38366]

  Mr. Curry
  In the year to March 1996, there were more than 31,500 right-to-buy sales by local authorities and new towns in England. Right to buy and other home ownership schemes are still producing about 180 new home owners a day in Britain.

  Policy Initiatives
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental policy initiatives have been launched since 26 July. [38518]

  Mr. Clappison
  During the parliamentary recess, we have been mainly concerned to develop initiatives which will be announced in this place shortly. Since 26 July, we have launched the following main environmental policy initiatives: consultation on air quality strategy; publication of circular on revised special waste regulations; and publication of draft statutory guidance on contaminated land. In addition, the landfill tax came into operation on 1 October.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in regard to the protection of hedgerows which were established under private enclosure legislation in the light of a recent court case in East Yorkshire. [40073]

  Mr. Clappison
  The recent judgment in this case established that the Yorkshire wildlife trust and Mr. Colin Seymour, a parishioner, have locus standi to pursue their application for a declaration that Flamborough parish council is bound by the relevant Enclosure Act and award to preserve part of an enclosure hedge. I understand that the application has yet to be heard by the court. We await the outcome with interest. When that is known, we will consider the implications of this case, if any, for regulations for the protection of important hedgerows to be introduced under section 97 of the Environment Act 1995. Such regulations will not, however, override restrictions imposed by other enactments or agreements, including enclosure awards.
  843

  Rating Appeals
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rating appeals(a) in total and (b) by valuation office were lodged against the (i) 1990 and (ii) 1995 rating lists; and in each case how many (1) have been resolved and (2) are outstanding. [40423]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am placing in the Library a set of tables which set out, in total, by region and by each office of the Valuation Office agency in England, the number of valid proposals to alter the 1995 rating lists which were received by 31 August 1996, the number settled and the number outstanding.

  I am also placing in the Library tables setting out, in total, by region and by each office, the number of proposals to alter the 1990 lists which are outstanding as at 31 August. The number of valid proposals received against the 1990 list in England up to 31 August was 1,402,948. Information on the number received by individual office and region is not available, as the structure and number of offices have now changed.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects all the appeals against(a) the 1990 rating list and (b) the 1995 rating list to have been resolved; and if he will make a statement. [40424]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Current plans are that appeals against the 1990 rating lists outstanding at 1 April 1996 should be cleared by 31 December 1996; appeals made prior to 31 March 1996 by 31 December 1997; and to reduce progressively the time to clear appeals to a maximum of 12 months by 1 April 1988. The only exceptions will be cases where all reasonable efforts to settle matters by agreement have been exhausted and the cases are awaiting determination by valuation tribunals or by the Lands Tribunal.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the research being conducted at British universities into materials that could be exported in support of construction projects compatible with principles of sustainable development; and what support his Department has provided these projects. [40425]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has made no such assessment. However, the Department of the Environment is providing direct support for the enhancement of civil engineering exports, including environmental technology, through collaborative funding of a two-year research project led by the Institution of Civil Engineers. This follows a recommendation from the national technology foresight exercise and will promote appropriate research programmes to cultivate UK expertise critical to export success in civil engineering.

  Child Care (North Hull)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce approval of the child care facility in north Hull under the Yorkshire and Humberside objectives of the European regional development fund programme. [40477]
  844
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The approval letters for this scheme were issued by the Department for Education and Employment on 25 September 1996.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department plans to complete its review of ERDF processes in England. [40421]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We hope to complete the review in time for the implementation of the 1997 to 1999 round of objective 2 programmes.

  Administrative Expenditure Guidelines
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his finance directorate issued its MINIS 17 guidelines for administrative expenditure. [40654]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Expenditure guidelines were issued on 22 September 1995 at the beginning of the MINIS 17 planning round, based on the resource requirements which were agreed in MINIS 16. The guidelines were adjusted as normal throughout the MINIS 17 round, in the light of available resources, technical changes and decisions taken.

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether the outcome of the review of the handling of incidents arid prosecutions by the drinking water inspectorate is consistent with the quality procedures manual and the code of enforcement. [40656]

  Mr. Clappison
  The review of incidents was carried out by a consultant on behalf of the drinking water inspectorate. It did not cover the inspectorate's handling of incidents, but was concerned with the lessons that could be learnt by the water companies in preventing incidents and their handling of them. The objectives of the review included: categorising the type of incidents, causes and frequency of occurrence; carrying out a critical appraisal of water companies' responses to incidents, including actions taken to protect and inform consumers, to communicate with health and local authorities and to prevent recurrence of incidents; assessing the effectiveness of water companies' arrangements for responding to incidents and the actions taken to rectify any faults in the treatment/distribution system, identifying areas of weakness; identifying those incidents which were outside the control of the company and those incidents which were avoidable; identifying those regulations which are commonly breached; and making recommendations appropriate to the findings from the above on any issues which warrant wider consideration.

  The inspectorate is assessing the consultant's findings and will publish the main conclusions and lessons to be learnt early in 1997.

  The drinking water inspectorate's quality procedures manual consists of a number of procedures covering the inspectorate's activities, including one on the handling of incidents and another on the handling of consumer complaints about drinking water quality. These procedures have been developed as part of the inspectorate's total quality programme. The one on

  845
  handling incidents has been in operation since May 1996. This procedure is an important part in achieving a consistent and rigorous approach to the investigations of incidents.

  The code for enforcement was introduced at the beginning of 1994. The code sets down how the inspectorate carries out its duties and sets service standards with response times. The inspectorate reports on its performance against the response times in its annual report.

  Central Economic Directorate
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make more transparent the output of his Department's central economic directorate. [40657]

  Mr. Clappison
  The output of the Department's chief economist directorate is set out each year in its MINIS return.

  "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish his Department's evaluation of the Government advisory document, "Policy Appraisal and the Environment," as implemented by Government Departments. [40655]

  Mr. Clappison
  The consultants appointed to undertake the evaluation of "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" are due to submit a draft final report to the Department in mid-December. No decision about the timing of publication has yet been taken.

  Environment Policy
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the implications for the United Kingdom environment policy of ISO 14001 published in September; and if he will make a statement. [40653]

  Mr. Clappison
  The White Paper on sustainable development—Cmnd. 2426—set out the Government's belief that voluntary initiatives by business have a vital role to play. The Government therefore welcome the new international standard for environmental management systems, ISO 14001, as it provides a management tool which will enable businesses voluntarily to improve their environmental performance. I was delighted earlier this week to address the British Standards Institution's conference to launch ISO 14001 in this country, an event which aptly reflected the pioneering work previously done by the institution to establish the world's first specification for environmental management systems, BS 7750. Businesses now have a framework for a voluntary and proactive approach to the management of their environmental impacts which is backed up by a regime of independent certification and is recognised worldwide. Companies making use of the standard will also be well on the way to achieving registration of their sites under the eco-management and audit scheme, which was launched last year across the European Union and is keenly supported by the Government. These initiatives, with their industry-wide recognition, should together form a powerful incentive for progressive business organisations to improve their competitiveness and at the 846
  same time raise the level of their environmental performance well above the minimum demanded by regulation.

  Unexploded Bombs (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department(a) holds and (b) has assessed in respect of unexploded bombs in London; how many unexploded bombs are estimated to exist in each London authority area; how many bombs are officially listed; what is the estimated risk associated with these; what contact his Department has had with planners, surveyors or their representative groups in this matter; and what action is planned to deal with the situation. [40564]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is nothing I can add to the answer already given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who has undertaken to write to the hon. Member.

  Wildlife Law (Guide)
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the practitioner's guide to wildlife law. [40945]

  Mr. Clappison
  Last November, I launched the partnership for action against wildlife crime, and announced that the Department would make funds available to finance a guide to wildlife law. Through the launch of the partnership, we have established good links between enforcement organisations, identified problems hampering enforcement, and sought ways to overcome them. One problem has been the lack of a comprehensive source of information about the various pieces of legislation protecting wildlife.

  Tomorrow, the Secretary of State for the Environment will announce the publication of the guide "Wildlife Crime—a Guide to Wildlife Law Enforcement in the UK" at a major seminar on combating environmental crime, to be held at the QEII conference centre in London. A copy of the guide will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The seminar will explore the scope for improving the enforcement of trade measures contained in key international environmental agreements to ensure that the UK is at the forefront of tackling the illegal trade in endangered species, ozone-depleting substances and hazardous waste, and whether lessons learnt in one area can be applied in another.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to publish their progress report on the Rural White Paper, "Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside". [41082]

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I intend to publish the progress report "Rural England 1996" on 24 October 1996. This reports on progress in implementing the commitments made in "Rural England", which we published in October 1995.
  847

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38691]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 October. [38692]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Ombudsman
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the offices of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, for Scotland and for Wales. [40949]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with section 1(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and schedule 1 to the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, Sir William Reid will be retiring from these offices on 2 January 1997.

  Her Majesty ha
  s been pleased to approve the appointment of Mr. Michael Sydney Buckley as Sir William's successor as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, for Scotland and for Wales, with effect from 3 January 1997.

  I am sure all Members of the House would wish me to express their gratitude and admiration for the very able and thorough manner in which Sir William Reid has fulfilled these duties over the last seven years. He has made an outstanding contribution to our public life.

  Royal Family (Taxation)
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes are planned to be made to the memorandum of understanding of 5 February 1993 under which the Queen and the Prince of Wales pay income, capital gains and inheritance tax on a voluntary basis, to take account of the introduction of the new system of self assessment for income tax and capital gains tax. [40950]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes, a change is required to reflect the new tax payment dates under self assessment. The memorandum of understanding has been amended, and I am placing a copy of the amendment in the Library.

  The memorandum of understanding provided that income tax and capital gains tax would be payable on 1 December following the end of the tax year. However, under self-assessment, 1 December will no longer be a tax payment date, and instead income tax will be payable on 31 January and 31 July and capital gains tax on 31 January. The memorandum of understanding has therefore been amended to make income tax and capital gains tax for 1996–97—the transitional year—payable on 31 January 1998; and income tax and capital
  848
  gains tax for 1997–98 and subsequent years will be payable on 31 January and 31 July in accordance with the normal rules of self assessment.

  These new arrangements mean tax will be paid under the memorandum of understanding several months earlier on average than at present.

  Changes have also been made to the provisions relating to payments on account, and interest on tax underpaid or overpaid, to bring them into line with the new self assessment rules.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Early Retirement and Voluntary Severance
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many (i) early retirement and (ii) voluntary severance packages were given to civil servants by grade in each Government Department in 1995–96. [40121]

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret that the information requested is available only at disproportionate cost. However, the table provides details of the number of early retirements and early severances in 1995–96 by main Department.

  Department

  Number of early retirements

  Number of early severances

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  280

  228

  Crown Prosecution Service

  53

  10

  Customs and Excise

  588

  335

  Defence

  2,285

  2,400

  Education and Employment

  450

  627

  Environment (including Property Holdings)

  180

  102

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  98

  15

  Overseas Development Administration

  47

  92

  Health

  284

  355

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  51

  25

  Home Office

  103

  22

  Inland Revenue

  1,090

  466

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  84

  28

  National Savings

  316

  307

  Office for National Statistics

  55

  31

  Ordnance Survey

  52

  33

  PSA Services

  191

  231

  Scottish Office

  144

  105

  Scottish Prison Service

  119

  115

  Social Security

  1,254

  752

  Trade and Industry

  217

  102

  Transport

  374

  525

  Treasury

  44

  64

  Welsh Office (including OHMCIS)

  48

  51

  Others

  979

  595

  Total

  9,686

  7,616

  Notes:

  1. Numbers relate to departures with a last day of service of 31 March 1995 to 30 March 1996 inclusive.

  2. "Others" include 566 early retirements and 430 early severances from employments covered by the Civil Service Compensation Scheme but which do not participate in the scheme for central funding of early departure costs, announced in a Written Answer by the then Chief Secretary, Official Report, 19 July 1994 c.95.

  Source:

  Paymaster agency.
  849
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what was the average value of (i) early retirement and (ii) voluntary severance packages given to civil servants by grade in each Government Department in 1995–96 [40120]

  (2) what was the highest value (i) early retirement and (ii) voluntary severance package given to civil servants by grade in each Government Department in 1995–96. [40122]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Business Support
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what conclusions have been drawn from the Government's consultation on simplification of business support, announced in the third competitiveness White Paper. [40512]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  My Department is today publishing the conclusions of the cross-government review on simplification of business support. The new arrangements mark a significant development in the partnership between government and business. We are bringing together support form across government into more coherent, simplified programmes. We are also committed to moving away from centrally designed and administered support schemes, which business has told us can be too complex and distant from their own needs, and to making government-funded support as customer focused as possible.

  The new challenge funds—local and sectoral—will be set up to support the best proposals for the most effective and customer focused business partnerships. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is today announcing further details of these challenges. Wherever possible these partnerships will take over the design and delivery of business support. Services that are best administered centrally, such as export market information, will be simplified to make them more accessible and responsive to business needs.

  By giving business more of a say in how support services are provided, the Government aim to meet their needs more fully and to ensure the best value for money for the taxpayer. Copies of the conclusions, "Helping businesses to win: the conclusions of the consultation", have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about the progress of the sales of HMSO, Chessington Computer Centre, Recruitment and Assessment Service and the Occupational Health and Safety Agency. [41081]

  Mr. Freeman
  These sales have now been completed. Chessington Computer Centre was sold on 31 July to a consortium made up of a management and employee buy-out team, Integris UK—the outsourcing division of Bull Information Systems Ltd.—and financial backers, Close Brothers. The consideration was £12.5 million, of which £1.25 million is deferred until 31 December 1999.
  850
  The Occupational Health and Safety Agency—OHSA—was sold on 18 September to BMI Health Services, which is part of General Healthcare Group plc. The consideration was £350,000. In addition, BMI is acting as agents for the Government to collect trade debts owed to OHSA which were estimated to be about £1.4 million when the sale was completed.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office was sold on 30 September to National Publishing Group—NPG—a consortium led by Electra Fleming, to trade under the name The Stationery Office. The consideration was £54 million. In addition, NPG has raised £71 million to fund investment, restructuring and working capital for The Stationery Office. In a separate transaction in September, the Government sold an HMSO site near Manchester for £1.4 million.

  Recruitment and Assessment Services was sold on 30 September to the Capita Group plc. The consideration was £7.25 million.

SCOTLAND

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39895]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are seven women members of staff who have declared themselves to be from an ethnic minority background in the Scottish Office and its agencies. Three hold posts at AO grade and four at AA grade. As an employer committed to equal opportunities for all staff we monitor the recruitment, employment and promotion of men and women whatever their background to ensure that no discrimination takes place. In recent months we have established a network group to support staff from an ethnic minority background. That group has discussed awareness raising of employment opportunities in the Scottish Office among ethnic minorities.

  Blind People
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of registered blind people in Scotland by category. [40033]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest complete figures are those for 1995:

  Number of persons registered blind and partially sighted: Scotland—1995

  Number registered at 31 March (include those registered as new cases)

  Blind

  Partially sighted

  Age (as at 31 March or date of registration)

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Under 5 years

  97

  201

  298

  55

  78

  133

  5–15

  128

  110

  238

  87

  85

  172

  851

  Number of persons registered blind and partially sighted: Scotland—1995

  Number registered at 31 March (include those registered as new cases)

  Blind

  Partially sighted

  Age (as at 31 March or date of registration)

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  16–29

  301

  213

  514

  214

  145

  359

  30–49

  873

  665

  1,538

  403

  365

  768

  50–64

  942

  836

  1,778

  412

  399

  811

  65–74

  1,197

  1,530

  2,727

  544

  810

  1,354

  75 and over

  4,047

  9,984

  14,301

  1,530

  4,224

  5,754

  All ages—total

  7,585

  13,539

  21,124

  3,245

  6,106

  9,351

  Prisons (Hepatitis)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to monitor the levels of hepatitis B and C within prisons in Scotland; how many inmates in the prison system have hepatitis B and C; what guidance his Department gives for the treatment of prisoners with hepatitis B and C; what measures are being taken to minimise the spread of hepatitis B and C within Scottish prisons; and if he will make a statement. [39891]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 15 October 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the steps taken by the Scottish Prison Service to deal with hepatitis B and C within prisons in Scotland.
  The Scottish Prison Service encourages inmates at risk of hepatitis B and C (principally those who have been involved in intravenous drug misuse) to come forward for voluntary testing on a confidential basis. For that reason it is not possible to state how many prisoners are infected with hepatic B and/or C. In a survey of 14 establishments in April 1995, however, there had been 48 positive results for hepatitis B out of 264 blood tests carried out in the previous year on prisoners at risk. The records of a sample of known intravenous drug users recently admitted to prison were also scrutinised. Ten per cent of the 165 prisoners involved were known to be hepatitis B positive, 47% were negative while for 43% the hepatitis status was not known. As regards hepatitis C, in Shotts Prison (with 465 adult male prisoners), 21 prisoners sought tests between January and July this year, of which 13 were positive (2 being confirmations of earlier tests). In Cornton Vale prison (for females) over the same period 27 out of 40 tests for hepatitis C were positive. For hepatitis B 6 tests out of 29 were positive.
  Immunisation against hepatitis B is available to prisoners and support treatments are provided as appropriate by prison medical officers, including the use of Interferon if required. The Medical Adviser to the SPS will shortly be issuing guidance to prison medical officers based on best practice in the NHS.
  Information is provided to prisoners through leaflets and clinics. As part of a wider hygiene initiative, disinfectant tablets are available to all prisoners for cleaning utensils. So far as is known these tablets will also kill hepatitis B and C.

  NHS Funds
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reasons for delaying further reconsideration of the Scottish health authorities revenue equalization—SHARE—formula for 852
  distribution of health service funds, with specific reference to rural areas; and when he plans next to have discussions with officials of Highland health board on this matter. [40676]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I anticipate that all health boards will be moved to their SHARE parity position at 1 April 1997. Evaluation of technical aspects of the formula is continually undertaken by my officials. Any proposals for changes to the formula would be subject to consultation with health boards and others at the appropriate time.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millenium Exhibition
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a progress report on plans for the millenium exhibition funding from the(a) public and (b) private sectors; and by what date a final decision will be made. [40648]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: This is a matter for the Millenium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Millenium Festival
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress has been made in preparing for the millennium festival. [37928]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: This is a matter for the Millenium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Transport Security Director
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has published the 1995–96 annual report of the Director of Transport Security. [40952]

  Sir George Young
  Copies of this report are available in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to reduce the level of unpaid maintenance as assessed by the Child Support Agency. [40056]

  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.
  853
  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 14 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency maintenance assessments.
  The Agency is currently in the process of implementing a number of initiatives to further improve the collection of legally due maintenance.
  A Debt Management System (DMS) has been trialled in our Plymouth Centre and will be rolled out nationally between January 1997 to March 1997. This will enable the Agency to better identify accounts which fall into arrears and take positive action to progress these cases. The Agency is also enhancing the Child Support Computer System and introducing procedural modifications to help improve compliance.
  Various payment methods are used to help minimise debt. The use of deduction of earnings orders (DEOs) where necessary, has proved a very effective method. To further improve the effectiveness of DEOs the Agency has streamlined its procedures to ensure that payment of maintenance starts as soon as possible.
  Where a DEO is not appropriate the Agency considers enforcement action such as obtaining a liability order. Also, since May 1996 the Agency has been able to enter debts in the County Court Register of Judgements. This is particularly useful with self-employed absent parents who do not pay their legally due maintenance. It is a powerful incentive to avoid credit blacklisting.
  The Agency is also looking at ways of further improving compliance at an early stage by encouraging the use of other payment methods such as direct debit.
  Finally, I would like to add that reduction of the outstanding maintenance debt is a high priority for the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases deferred by the Child Support Agency following the announcement of 20 December 1994(a) have been taken on by the agency and (b) have yet to be taken on. [40059]

  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 Mr. Frank Field, dated 14 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency cases where take on was deferred in December 1994.
  The Agency recommenced take on of these cases in November 1995, in line with the agreement made with the Secretary of State to recommence take on by December 1995. Up to 31 August 1996, 4,845 cases had been taken on by the Agency.
  It is not possible to give an exact figure for the number of cases still outstanding. To obtain this a clerical examination of all the deferred cases would have to be made to find those appropriate for action and this would incur disproportionate cost. It is estimated that the number outstanding at 30 June 1996 has reduced to around 190,000 cases.
  This reduction is due to a number of reasons. The recommencement of take on mentioned above; also, in some cases where Income Support has ceased and the parent with care has made a fresh application for benefit, the Agency will have become involved and these cases will have been taken on; in other cases the parent with care will have requested that the Agency take on the case and this will have been done; finally, some clients will no longer be claiming Income Support.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number and percentage of women, since the establishment of the Child Support 854
  Agency, whose cases have been examined by the Child Support Agency who (a) have not named the father, (b) are accepted by the agency as not knowing the name of the father and (c) claim not to know the name of the father but whose claim has been rejected by the Child Support Agency. [40141]

  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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 14 October 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency cases.
  The details that you have requested are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost; there are a number of reasons for this:
  Firstly, the Agency does not differentiate absent parents and parents with care by gender; by far the vast majority of parents with care are women, but within those cases where the parent with care has failed to identify the person liable to pay maintenance, there is a small number where the parent with care is male.
  Also, when dealing with parents with care and collecting details of absent parents, the Agency encounters very different circumstances and goes through different stages for different cases. The issue of naming the absent parent, and the question of whether the parent with care knows the name of the absent parent are factors that contribute to this process; however, the Agency does not record statistical information in every case on these factors separately.
  From the nearest available information in this area, I can tell you that of over 1.3 million cases cleared by the Agency since its launch in April 1993, the number of cases where the failure to name the absent parent, initially at least, has been an issue is estimated to be in the region of 180,000.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Community Care Grant Appeals
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to accelerate the community care grant appeals procedure; and if he will make a statement. [40236]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Secretary of State has laid down guidance and directions for dealing with a request for a review. We are not aware of any major problems with the current review process.

  From 1 April 1996 to 31 July 1996 inclusive the average clearance time for a community care grant review was 13.8 days.

  One benefit office in the hon. Member's constituency did have a backlog of reviews outstanding at the end of July. It has since taken action to reduce the arrears in this area of work. Its clearance time for reviews should be showing an improvement and constituents should now be receiving an improved service.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals in each of the benefit districts in Wales have been lodged against the withdrawal of the reduction in earnings allowance. [40464]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate his Department has
  855
  made of the number of appeals to be made in England and Wales against the withdrawal of the reduced earnings allowance; [40468]

  (2) how many additional staff have been employed and how many man hours have been devoted to deal with the outstanding appeals made to date against the withdrawal of the reduced earnings allowance. [40461]

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

  It was estimated that approximately 25 per cent. of reduced allowance recipients transferred to retirement allowance following the introduction of amending legislation would appeal against the adjudication officer's decision.

  Based on this assumption the cost in staff time for the Benefits Agency is estimated at a total of 15.81 man years. This figure is provisional and may be subject to change.

  Offices have been provided with resources accordingly to enable them to deal with the extra work arising from these appeals.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individual appeals against the withdrawal of the reduced earning allowances have been heard; and what percentage of appeals heard have found in favour of the appellants. [40469]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average cost to an individual who has lost his reduced earnings allowance as a result of recent regulations in each of the benefit districts in Wales. [40467]

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

  Reduced earnings allowance recipients who are over pensionable age and who are not in regular employment have been transferred to retirement allowance in accordance with the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996, which came into effect on 24 March 1996. The average difference between reduced earnings allowance and retirement allowance is estimated to be around £29.00. This may be offset by additional income-related benefit entitlement for some retirement allowance recipients.

  Child Support Departure System
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to introduce the child support departure system. [40915]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I have today laid draft regulations which, subject to the approval of the House, will provide for the departures system to be phased in nationally from 2 December 1996.

  The child support formula assessment is right in the vast majority of cases but the new system will allow scope for discretion in the small proportion of cases where the standard formula is not seen to produce a fair result. The
  856
  grounds on which a departure application may be made include, for example, property and capital transfers made before April 1993 and high travel costs to maintain contact with the child. Also included are cases where parents are diverting income which would otherwise be available or where their lifestyle is inconsistent with their declared income.

  Supported Housing
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the terms of reference of the interdepartmental review of funding of supported housing; and if he will make a statement. [40914]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In April, right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted on draft regulations to clarify the treatment of service charges in housing benefit. The representations that he received indicated that significant amounts of housing benefit may be being paid in respect of personal services in supported accommodation. He concluded that the sudden withdrawal of this source of income may cause significant difficulties for vulnerable people. Therefore, the proposed amendment was withdrawn and an urgent inter-departmental review commissioned to consider all aspects of the funding of services in supported accommodation. The review's terms of reference are to:

  1. Identify and estimate current benefit expenditure on services provided in supported accommodation.

  2. Consider the proposed legislation and its implications. In particular, identify and estimate the numbers of people who would have been affected by it.

  3. Examine and report upon the current mechanisms for funding and delivery of support services.

  4. Identify and report upon alternative mechanisms for funding support services.

  5. Examine and support upon where the sustainable balance should lie between Social Security and other funding services, and the implications for the care and housing sectors.

  We are seeking a sustainable balance between the various funding sources which ensures that essential support services are properly and appropriately funded whilst securing the most effective and economic resources.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children aged(a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18 and (d) 19 years in receipt of child benefit attend (i) school, (ii) sixth form college, (iii) tertiary college, (iv) further education college and (v) the youth training scheme. [30139]

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 May 1996, Official Report, c. 290]: The information that I gave regarding the number of 17-year-olds undergoing youth training was incorrect. The correct information is as follows.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Child benefit data are not available on the nature of the education being undertaken, and education data have no regard to the receipt or otherwise of child benefit. The figures are therefore not directly comparable. However, child benefit is not payable for any young person undergoing a youth training course, and all

  857
  entitlement ceases at the 19th birthday. Available data on the number of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds for whom child benefit is paid, and the number in education and training are in the tables:

  Number of children for whom child benefit is paid

  Number

  16 year olds

  577,100

  17 year olds

  400,700

  18 year olds

  177,600

  Educational establishments attended by 16 to 18-year-olds

  16-year-olds

  17-year-olds

  18-year-olds

  Schools

  246,000

  175,000

  19,000

  Sixth form colleges

  53,000

  40,000

  10,000

  Tertiary colleges

  35,000

  30,000

  13,000

  Further education

  125,000

  112,000

  74,000

  Youth training

  69,000

  76,000

  40,000

DEFENCE

  Precision Guided Missiles
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received that parts for the ISC-Ferranti precision guided missile were to be supplied by South Africa; what action his Department took as a result of such reports; and if he will make a statement. [40210]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The hon. Member will recall that he raised this issue in a letter that he sent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dated 5 November 1994.

  The Prime Minister's reply of 24 November stated that the papers that the hon. Member had forwarded with his letter did not provide any evidence of breaches in UK import or export controls. I have nothing to add to this.

  Biological Weapons (Iran)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the biological weapons capacity of Iran. [40506]

  Mr. Soames
  Iran has a developed biotechnology industry which would be capable of sustaining a biological warfare research programme. For this reason, it is a cause for concern that Iran, though a state party to the biological and toxin weapons convention since 1973, has not offered to submit to the UN centre for disarmament affairs any confidence-building and transparency declarations.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to add a gynaecologist to the medical team examining British service men and ex-service men and their partners who are suffering prolonged illness following service in the Gulf war. [40496]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not intended to add a gynaecologist to the medical team running the Department's medical assessment programme. If a consultant gynaecological opinion is required, this will be obtained through the usual medical referral procedure.
  858
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research in collaboration with the United States Institute of Medicine has been funded by his Department into Gulf war syndrome. [40497]

  Mr. Soames
  The United States Government are funding a range of studies into Gulf health issues, including one in the United Kingdom by Dr. Simon Wessely of King's college medical school. I shall be announcing the final selection of research projects to be funded by my Department, as recommended by the Medical Research Council, in November.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to compensate victims of Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [40557]

  Mr. Soames
  Those who served in the Gulf war have the same legal right of compensation against the Ministry of Defence as civilian workers have against MOD or any other employer. Any Gulf veterans who can be shown to be suffering from illness caused by negligence on the part of my Department will be entitled to compensation in line with common law principles. However, no such compensation claims have yet been pursued by lawyers for claimants, although a list of over a thousand names of potential claimants has been lodged with MOD. This list gives the symptoms or disease claimed to have been experienced by each person since the Gulf war, without specific allegations of negligence.

  Gulf War Clean-up Operations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops were involved with United States forces in the clean-up operations near A1-Nasiriyah in 1991 following the Gulf war. [40498]

  Mr. Soames
  Our records indicate that no British troops were involved in the US Army's activities in the Al-Nasiriyah area after the Gulf war.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which British forces served directly with the US Army's 37 Engineer Battalion during Operation Granby. [40499]

  Mr. Soames
  We have no record of any British forces serving directly with the US Army's 37th Engineer Battalion during Operation Granby.

  Gulf War Publications
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which sections of the text of the recent book on the Gulf war by Major-General Patrick Cordingley, were amended by his Department on submission of the draft text for clearance; and if he will list the reasons for the removal of sections of the submitted text. [40505]

  Mr. Soames
  Minor changes to Major-General Cordingley's manuscript were agreed in order to protect confidentiality and national security.
  859

  Military Bases (Pollution)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies have been commissioned by his Department into(a) the degree of contamination and (b) the prospects for remedial action at (i) military bases in the United Kingdom and (ii) dependent territories abroad. [40426]

  Mr. Soames
  Within the United Kingdom my Department is introducing a procedure of land quality assessment to establish the condition of individual sites on the defence estate and where appropriate make recommendations for and implementation of remediation. Given the extent of the defence estate a prioritised programme for this work is being drawn up. For dependent territories abroad, a similar land quality assessment process is being adopted, where this meets the requirements of the host country.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received this year from the Celtic League concerning the environmental consequences of pollution at and leakages from existing and retired military bases in the United Kingdom. [40427]

  Mr. Soames
  None. The league has asked for environmental information about UK military bases, but it has not yet confirmed that it would be prepared to meet any MOD administrative costs for researching the information due under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has commissioned on the levels of(a) toxic and (b) other pollution at military bases in Wales; and what publications his Department has issued in this respect over the past 12 months. [40518]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is introducing a procedure of land quality assessment to establish the condition of individual sites and detect the presence of contaminants on the defence estate, and where appropriate make recommendations for and implementation of remediation. Given the extent of the defence estate, a prioritised programme for this work is being drawn up. Land quality assessment work is being undertaken at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency sites at Aberporth, Llanbedr and Pendine, and an assessment of RAF Caerwent was commissioned on 4 October 1996.

  My Department has not issued any publications about the level of contamination at military sites in 'Wales during the last 12 months.

  HMS Royal Oak
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential environmental threat from the seepage of oil from the wreck of HMS Royal Oak at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands. [40428]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has taken urgent steps to remove the environmental threat to Scapa Flow posed by oil leaking from a small area of the wreck of HMS Royal Oak. The leak has been sealed, and the small quantity of oil which had come ashore prior to this action has been removed.
  860

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation his Department has undertaken with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise over the implementation of the landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [40429]

  Mr. Soames
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have kept my Department informed of the plans to implement the landfill tax. As the MOD and its agencies do not operate any landfill sites, we do not except to pay direct landfill tax charges.

  Submarines
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many submarines are now assessed to be surplus to requirements; and what plans exist for their disposal. [40551]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There are currently six diesel-electric submarines surplus to the Royal Navy's requirements: four Upholder class and two Oberon class boats. The four Upholder class submarines are currently being marketed for sale or lease to a number of friendly countries. The Oberon class boats are in the hands of a commercial residual asset manager who is stripping them of reusable components before the hulls are sold for breaking.

  Eleven nuclear-powered submarines have been withdrawn from service. Our current policy is that decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines should be stored safely afloat at the location where they are decommissioned, pending disposal. We envisage final disposal, early next century, in the deep repository currently being developed by Nirex.

  Deysbrook Barracks, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Deysbrook barracks site in Liverpool. [40552]

  Mr. Soames
  It is planned to redeploy the Regular Army units currently occupying Deysbrook barracks to other locations. The majority of the site will therefore no longer be required by my Department, and will be disposed of within the next four years. A small enclave will, however, be retained as a Territorial Army centre to house the Territorial Army and cadet units currently using the barracks.

  Private Simon Jeans
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the murder of Private Simon Jeans serving with IFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina. [40556]

  Mr. Soames
  Private Simon Jeans of the Royal Logistics Corps was attacked in Split, Croatia, on 7 September this year. Sadly, he died of his injuries 10 days later, having been medically evacuated to the UK. Her Majesty's Government are very saddened by this vicious and senseless act, and offer our most heartfelt sympathies to his family.
  861
  Criminal proceedings are progressing against four Croatian youths. Every assistance has been, and will continue to be, given to the Croatian civil police to bring the perpetrators of this dreadful crime to justice.

  Trilateral Defence Agreement
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the trilateral defence agreement with Poland and Ukraine. [40559]

  Mr. Soames
  I met the Polish and Ukrainian Defence Ministers in Poland on 2 and 3 September. We agreed to institute a regular process of trilateral meetings and to develop a programme of trilateral defence co-operation. Within this framework, we are examining the possibility of UK assistance to the joint Polish-Ukrainian peacekeeping battalion and of joint training exercises.

  Unexploded Bombs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department(a) holds and (b) has assessed in respect of unexploded bombs in London; how many unexploded bombs are estimated to exist in each London authority area; how many bombs are officially listed; what is the estimated risk associated with these; what contact his Department has had with planners, surveyors or their representative groups in this matter; and what contact his Department has had with planners, surveyors or their representative groups in this matter; and what action is planned to deal with the situation. [40563]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Services Sound and Vision Corporation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's relationship with the Services Sound and Vision Corporation. [40946]

  Mr. Soames
  The Services Sound and Vision Corporation is a registered charity and also a company limited by guarantee which supplies a range of goods and services to my Department and to other customers. It does not carry out any function of government as such. It is classified as a non-departmental public body sponsored by my Department because most of its income has derived from work which was automatically placed by my Department with the corporation on a non-profit basis, and the Ministry of Defence is represented by trustees in the higher organisation of the corporation. However, this arrangement has not provided MOD with the kind of control that it is appropriate for sponsoring Departments to exercise over their NDPBs. It has been decided that best value for money would be obtained if the relevant goods and services were obtained by normal contractual means. My Department intends, subject to any responses to the minute that it laid before Parliament on 14 October 1996, that all future work done for it by SSVC should be conducted under contract.

  MOD's proposed contractual relationship with SSVC would be the same as its relationship with any commercial supplier, so it would be inappropriate for the corporation to retain its status as a NDPB. Therefore, subject to signing of the proposed contracts, it is intended that SSVC's NDPB status shall be revoked.
  862
  In order to prepare for the proposed new relationship with MOD, SSVC reviewed its activities. As a result of this, the corporation decided not to compete for some types of work that it previously undertook for MOD. This decision, and restructuring to enable it to compete for other types of MOD work, led to the need to reduce the SSVC work force by some 25 per cent. or about 200 posts. My Department has honoured its consequential liabilities towards SSVC by funding the restructuring costs, which mainly consisted of redundancy payments.

  Another effect of the new relationship between MOD and SSVC concerns residual contingent liabilities. MOD would, under the proposed contractual relationship, retain some liabilities arising from the NDPB arrangement. This is explained in greater detail in the minute laid before Parliament to earlier.

  With the removal of SSVC's NDPB status there would be no reason for MOD to continue to be represented in the corporation's higher organisation and, given the new contractual relationship between MOD and SSVC, it would be preferable for the practice to end as soon as possible.

  Following the restructuring of SSVC and the removal of its NDPB status, the corporation should be able to operate more efficiently and with greater freedom than in the past. Given this, and its expertise in the business activity it will continue to undertake, MOD believes that the corporation should flourish.

  Intelligence and Security Centre
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. [40947]

  Mr. Soames
  The defence costs study recommended that a single joint services defence intelligence and security training centre with a rationalised management and support structure be formed at one location and that this centre be considered for defence agency status.

  Following detailed studies, I have agreed to the formation of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre as a defence agency on 1 October 1996 at the former RAF Chicksands.

  When collocation is complete, the DISC will comprise units formerly based at Ashford and Garats Hay stations, Royal Air Force North Luffenham and Wyton, and HMS Mercury. It will employ approximately 500 staff, comprising military personnel from all three Services and civil servants.

  The chief executive will hold executive powers delegated from my Department to allow the agency to fulfil its responsibilities. The chief executive will also be directly accountable to my Department and Parliament for the propriety and regularity of the agency's expenditure, for the adequacy of its financial systems, and for the efficient and economical conduct of its business. I will arrange for copies of the agency's framework document and corporate plan to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The aim of the agency is to train the armed forces and other intelligence agencies in intelligence, security and psychological operations disciplines and conduct after

  863
  capture to contribute to effective and timely advice to the armed forces on appropriate intelligence and security policy matters, and to maintain an operational capability all in a cost effective manner.

  The chief executive has been set the following demanding output and developmental key targets for the first six months of operation, taking into account that units will be moving to Chicksands during this period:

  The output targets are:
  For training:
  to make available to customers an agreed number of planned annual course training days—1,125 days between 1 October 1996 and 31 March 1997, recognising the need to meet any surge requirements within allocated resources.
  For advice:
  to contribute to formulation of MOD policy on appropriate intelligence, security and psychological operations matters in an efficient and satisfactory manner.
  For operations:
  to meet the operational tasking to manning levels and performance standards agreed with the owner to the satisfaction of customers.

  For development of the DISC, the targets are:
  On training:
  by 31 March 1997 to evaluate quality control mechanisms across all areas of training including systems of measurement, target setting and customer interface, all in accordance with the systems approach to training and identify any corrective measures necessary.
  On advice:
  in consultation with the owner and customers, determine a formal assessment mechanism by which the effectiveness of the contribution made by DISC staff to formulation of MOD policy for appropriate intelligence and security matters can be made.
  Concerning resource management:
  to introduce interim systems for training and financial management in order to produce training information and full cost accrual accounting based resource accounts for the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997, in accordance with the requirements of agency reporting and the accounts direction for trial audit by the National Audit Office.
  And also:
  to progress the implementation of the planned DISC rationalisation and collocation programme.

  All these targets will encourage continuous improvements and efficiencies to intelligence and security training for the armed services and enable the DISC to develop into a cohesive corporate centre of excellence. The bringing together of these units will also enable efficiencies in manpower and support costs to be made and a saving to the defence budget of £5 million per annum once collocation has occurred.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the figures for grant in aid for St. Helena for the past five years(a) in cash terms and (b) at constant prices. [40602]
  864
  Dr. Liam Fox
  The figures are:

  £ million

  Cash prices

  Constant prices

  1991–92

  3.424

  3.827

  1992–93

  3.479

  3.731

  1993–94

  3.495

  3.644

  1994–95

  3.225

  3.303

  1995–96

  3.805

  3.805

  Grant in aid, or budgetary aid, is only one element of the UK's wider aid programme to St. Helena.

WALES

  Local Government Consultation Paper
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to announce his decisions on the proposals set out in his consultation paper "The Welsh Office and Local Government: Redefining the Relationship", published in March of this year. [41074]

  Mr. Hague
  I have already announced progress in a number of important areas, including arrangements for the first round of the Welsh capital challenge scheme. However, I have today published a second paper which provides a comprehensive summary of the original proposals and the responses received. It also sets out my decisions on all of the proposals and encourages further dialogue on the question of the Welsh Office's relationship with local government. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission a study over an appropriate period of the effect of the second Severn crossing on the economy and employment of south Wales. [40031]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no such plans. The new crossing represents an opportunity that I believe Welsh businesses will take.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many TB cases there were in Wales in the last available year; and if he will make a statement. [40051]

  Mr. Hague
  There were 184 notified cases of tuberculosis in Wales in 1995.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people died from smoking-related diseases in each of the last three years. [40047]

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is as follows. All figures for 1995 are provisional.

  The specific category of smoking-related disease is not defined explicitly. Three diseases commonly caused by smoking are: lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
  865
  The total number of deaths occurring in Wales from lung cancer was 2,017 in 1993, 1,966 in 1994 and 1,864 in 1995. It is likely that smoking would have been a major factor in between 90 and 95 per cent. of these deaths.

  The total number of deaths occurring in Wales from coronary heart disease was 9,676 in 1993, 8,611 in 1994 and 8,739 in 1995. The total number of deaths occurring in Wales from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was 1,802 in 1993, 1,557 in 1994 and 1,990 in 1995. It is likely that smoking would have been a major factor in a significant proportion of these deaths.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many women from ethnic minorities are employed by his Department and its agencies; at what grade; and what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) recruitment, (b) employment and (c) promotion of women from ethnic minorities within his Department and its agencies. [39900]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department is committed to increasing the proportion of its staff who come from ethnic minority backgrounds. Outreach programmes have been introduced to encourage recruitment. A programme of action for staff from ethnic minorities has been developed to help identify and overcome any barriers and ensure staff have the opportunity to develop to their full potential.

  Statistical information on staff from ethnic minorities is not available in the format requested.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many practice managers and practice administrative staff there are in the health service in Wales. [40049]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is given in the following table.

  Whole-tune equivalent number of GP practice staff in post

  1 October 1995

  Practice managers, including fund managers

  440

  Other administrative staff1

  2,463

  1 Secretarial, receptionist, clerical, computer operators and other administrative staff.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spends on mental health; what proportion this constitutes of the health budget; and if he will make a statement. [40050]

  Mr. Hague
  In 1995–96, according to their audited accounts, district health authorities and family health authorities spent £149,880,964 on mental illness services which represented 7.6 per cent. of the total provision spent purchasing health care. This included some £13.8 million allocated by the Department for spending on mental health services.
  866

  Road and Economy Studies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the titles of the studies(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department during the last 10 years concerning the relationship between economic growth, jobs and road building. [40064]

  Mr. Hague
  None, but the south Wales area traffic study published in December 1990 and the north-east Clwyd traffic study published in November 1991 looked at traffic levels, traffic growth and future capacity requirements for the road network in those areas of Wales. There is a degree of assessment of potential economic growth associated with such studies. Copies of both reports are in the Library of the House.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the average cost of a national vocational qualification acquired through youth training within each of the training and enterprise councils in Wales. [40484]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The following table gives the estimated apportionment of costs, as between national vocational qualifications levels 1 to 4, incurred by the Welsh Office as a result of its contracts with the respective training and enterprise councils in Wales in 1995–96.

  Average cost of a national vocational qualification

  TEC

  Average—cost per NVQ 1995–96(£)

  NVQ1

  NVQ2

  NVQ3

  NVQ4

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  4,285

  3,658

  7,943

  8,544

  Gwent TEC

  3,338

  2,604

  5,943

  6,227

  West Wales TEC

  3,309

  3,022

  6,331

  6,944

  South Glamorgan TEC

  4,768

  3,709

  8,477

  8,874

  Powys TEC

  3,801

  2,997

  6,798

  7,145

  Targed

  2,983

  2,448

  5,430

  5,775

  North East Wales TEC

  3,217

  2,176

  5,393

  5,416

  Wales

  3,751

  3,009

  6,760

  7,141

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the percentage and number of those aged 19 who have not achieved a national vocational qualification at level 2 or a comparable educational qualification. [40487]

  Mr. Evans
  The labour force survey for winter 1995–96 estimated that 36,000 or 39 per cent. of 19 to 21-year-olds in Wales had not achieved a national vocational qualification at level 2 or a comparable educational qualification. No reliable figures are available for 19-year-olds separately.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the amount offered per training week within the youth training scheme by each training and enterprise council; and what proportion of that amount is spent on training. [40485]

  Mr. Evans
  The Welsh Office does not make estimates of the prices offered by each of the training and enterprise councils in Wales to training providers. The Department contracts with each TEC for a range of services at prices which reflect the nature and volume of service to be provided and take account of the previous year's outturn
  867
  performance in terms of comparative unit costs. The TECs in turn contract with training providers and other suppliers at prices which reflect their own commercial judgment as to appropriate levels. These may be above or below those paid by the Department.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the percentage of school leavers who have entered work without recognised training or further education. [40486]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is not collected by the Welsh Office. However, the Wales Association of Heads of Careers Companies has published figures showing that, of 16-year-olds in Wales in 1995, approximately 5 per cent. entered employment without any planned training.

  Effluent Treatment Plants
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Wales on how many occasions since 1 January 1990 consent conditions applied to effluent treatment plants in Wales have been contravened; and what steps have been taken to remedy the pollution. [40525]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to tables 13.1 to 13.3 in the "Environmental Digest for Wales No. 9 1996" published by the Welsh Office, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Under the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995, the Environment Agency has a wide range of powers to tackle aquatic pollution.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the compliance of provision of public drinking water supplies in Wales with the 1985 World Health Organisation guidelines on drinking water quality. [40520]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The national standards for public drinking water supplies are prescribed by the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989, SI 1989 No. 1147. These incorporate the standards of the EC Drinking Water Directive, 80/778/EEC, which in turn are based in many cases on the 1984 World Health Organisation guidelines for drinking water quality. Information on compliance in Wales with the regulations is contained in the annual reports published by the chief inspector of the drinking water inspectorate, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of implementation since June 1992 of Agenda 21 for sustainable development in Wales. [40517]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on the progress made in Wales toward achieving sustainable development in Wales will be included in "The Environment in Wales—Fifth Report", which will be published in the next few weeks by the Welsh Office. I will arrange for copies of the report to be sent to the hon. Member and to be placed in the Library of the House.
  868

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations have been received in respect of the effect on sites of special scientific interest in wales of airborne and aquatic discharge from(a) power plants and (b) agri-farming. [40515]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) major (b) significant (c) minor and (d) unsubstantiated water pollution incidents have been (i) notified and (ii) suspected in Wales in each year since the coming into force of the Water Resources Act 1991; how many prosecution have resulted arid what punitive or remedial action has been taken in each case. [40522]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual reports published by the Environment Agency and its predecessor the National Rivers Authority on "Water Pollution incidents in England and Wales", copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since the coming into force of the Water Resources Act 1991 the environmental protection authorities in Wales have dropped a prosecution against an alleged polluter where the incident was notified during the investigation as a category 1 or category 2 case. [40523]

  Mr. Evans
  The policy of the Environment Agency and previously the National Rivers Authority is to prosecute category 1 pollution incidents where there is adequate evidence to support the case. The policy for category 2 incidents is less rigid and allows for the use of formal cautions or warning letters where appropriate. Information on prosecutions under the Water Resources Act 1991 that have been dropped by the authority and the agency is not held centrally.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the meetings he has had in the past 12 months with the head of the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority and the Welsh divisional office of the Environment Agency to discuss the effectiveness of the application of legislation to protect drinking water sources from pollution; and if he will indicate the outcome of each meeting. [40524]

  Mr. Evans
  Officials of the Environment Agency, and previously the National Rivers Authority, including the Welsh regional general manager, meet regularly with officials of the Welsh Office to discuss a range of matters relating to the functions of the agency and the authority. My right hon. Friend is advised on the carrying out of these functions by committees which have been established under section 6 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and section 11 of the Environment Act 1995 and annual reports are placed in the Library of the House.
  869

  Homelessness
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level of homelessness in Wales; and what steps he is taking to alleviate the problem. [40516]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I am very pleased that the level of homelessness in Wales continues to fall significantly. The recently published "Welsh Housing Statistics 1996", a copy of which is in the Library, recorded a fall in accepted cases of homelessness of 13 per cent. to 9,000 in 1995 and the proportion of priority acceptances at 65 per cent of this figure is the lowest recorded level since 1978.

  We have a range of policies and initiatives in place in Wales to assist authorities in tackling homelessness and clearly these are working.

  Bullying
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions exist to assist schoolchildren in Wales to combat bullying. [40521]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  As part of the Government's commitment to tackling issues of school discipline, we have made available funding of £925,000 under this year's grant for education support and training programme for specific projects aimed at reducing truancy and improving classroom discipline generally. However, primary responsibility for measures to combat and deal with bullying rests with schools themselves supported by local education authorities.

  All schools should establish their own anti-bullying policy as part of their overall policy on pupil behaviour and discipline.

  We will be bringing forward a package of measures to improve school discipline in the Education Bill which we will be introducing in the next session of Parliament.

  Urban Investment Grant Scheme
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the urban investment grant scheme will be transferred to the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [41073]

  Mr. Hague
  Transfer of responsibility for the urban investment grant—UIG—scheme was deferred from 1 April to 1 October 1996 to allow the WDA not only to administer new projects but to act as my agent for existing UIG agreements and for projects where grant was approved subject to the successful conclusion of a legal agreement falling within the WDA's statutory powers. This increased level of responsibility was made possible through section 130 of the Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, which came into force on 25 September. I appointed the WDA to be my agent in relation to these matters from 1 October 1996.

  Also from 1 October 1996, for new business, I have asked the WDA to offer incentives similar to those previously available under the Welsh Office's UIG scheme to promote the economic regeneration of derelict land and buildings in urban areas. For 1996–97, £3.882 million will be transferred to the WDA to fund on-going and new projects.
  870

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Test Ban
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of discussions at the United Nations General Assembly on a nuclear test ban; and if he will place in the Library a copy of all speeches made by representatives of the United Kingdom Government to the UNGA on a test ban since 1 September. [39918]

  Mr. David Davis
  A resolution adopting the comprehensive test ban treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996, with the support of 158 states. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs set out the Government's position in his statement to the United Nations General Committee on 24 September, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  European Youth Foundation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries currently contribute towards the budget of the European Youth Foundation. [40180]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following countries have undertaken to contribute towards the current budget of the European Youth Foundation of the Council of Europe:

  Albania

  Andorra

  Austria

  Belgium

  Greece

  Hungary

  Iceland

  Ireland

  Norway

  Poland

  Portugal

  Romania.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British youth groups, apart from the scouting movement, presently benefit from the work of the European Youth Foundation. [40178]

  Mr. Davis
  About 70 British youth groups in 1996, apart from the Scout Association, have benefited directly or indirectly from European Youth Foundation grants made to their respective international umbrella youth organisations.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to(a) reduce and (b) end the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Youth Foundation. [40177]

  Mr. Davis
  We have given the requisite 12 months notice to cease contributing our annual endowment to the European Youth Foundation with effect from 1 January 1997. Our 1996 contribution has been paid in full.
  871
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the saving to public funds when his Department withdraws its financial support to the European Youth Foundation. [40181]

  Mr. Davis
  We estimate that our withdrawal from the European Youth Foundation will save the public purse about £325,000 per annum.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries currently contribute towards the funding of the European Youth Foundation. [40179]

  Mr. Davis
  Thirty-six countries have undertaken to contribute to the current budget of the European Youth Foundation.

  Nuclear Safety Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations his Department had with the United States State Department about the memorandum of agreement on co-operation concerning nuclear safety and security it signed with France on 4 June; and if he will make a statement. [40280]

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received from the US State Department a copy of the memorandum of agreement on co-operation concerning nuclear safety and security which France entered into with the United States on 4 June; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [40276]

  Mr. Davis
  No. Bilateral co-operation between the United States and France is a matter for the Governments concerned.

  Eastern Europe (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the implications for the stipulations of articles (i) and (ii) of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty over the transfer of nuclear weapons and nuclear know-how of negotiations to increase the membership of NATO with eastern European states; and if he will make a statement. [40519]

  Mr. David Davis
  None. Articles I and II of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty do not prevent the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of non-nuclear weapon states, but the alliance made clear last year that there was no a priori requirement for the stationing of nuclear weapons on the territory of new members, and that the present NATO nuclear posture would for the foreseeable future continue to meet the requirements of an enlarged alliance.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 June Official Report, column 566, relating to the dismissal of a teacher in St. Helena, if the notification was received from the Governor operating in his personal capacity. [40603]
  872
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The teacher in question resigned from her post. She was not dismissed. There is therefore no relevance in this case to the Governor's reserved powers.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how many days in 1996 the Governor of St. Helena has been resident on St. Helena. [40600]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  During 1996, the Governor has been resident on St. Helena for the whole year except for 30 days spent travelling to and from St. Helena's dependencies on duty, and 76 days travelling to and from the UK for consultations in London and leave. St. Helena's Chief Secretary was appointed to administer the Government during the Governor's absences.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the figure for unemployment in percentage term on St. Helena at 1 January 1996; what is the latest figure; if he will make a statement. [40601]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The percentage of people seeking full-time employment at the end of December 1995 was 15 per cent. of the on-island work force. The latest equivalent figure available—for August 1996—is 18 per cent. We are working with the St. Helena Government to develop the island's economy to create new employment opportunities and to alleviate the unemployment situation on St. Helena.

  Secretary-General of the United Nations
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the post of UN Secretary-General. [40562]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  It is the Government's long-standing policy not to reveal their voting intentions for the election of the United Nations Secretary-General.

  Private Simon Jeans
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Croatian Government in respect of the murder of Private Simon Jeans serving with IFOR; if compensation is being claimed from Croatia; and if he will make a statement. [40555]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have made clear our grave concern at the incident leading to the tragic death of Private Simon Jeans. The Croatian authorities have arrested and charged with manslaughter four people in connection with his death. They are due to appear in court in Croatia on 23 October. British IFOR commanders remain in very close contact with the Croatian authorities. It is for the family of Private Simon Jeans to consider claiming compensation once the outcome of the Croatian authorities' investigation is known. The broader question of UK criminal injuries compensation for service men and women killed in the former Yugoslavia is being examined by the Government.
  873

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the joint FCO-BBC World Service working group report on the implications for the future of the BBC World Service of the BBC's restructuring proposals. [40916]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The chairman of the BBC and I met on 14 October to consider the report of the joint FCO/BBC World Service working group. We have accepted its conclusions.

  I am encouraged that the working group has agreed a series of 20 new proposals designed to ensure the continued protection of World Service interests and the maintenance of the special character, style, ethos and quality of World Service broadcasts.

  The working group will reconvene in the autumn of 1997 to review the effects of the World Service of the implementation of the BBC's restructuring proposals to ensure that the new measures agreed by the working group are functioning satisfactorily and producing the desired results.

  The Government remain committed to the success of the World Service, to the maintenance of the high quality of its output, and to its continued pre-eminence among international broadcasters.

  I have placed copies of the full report of the working group in the Libraries of both Houses.

  A summary of the measures agreed by the working group is as follows:
  SUMMARY OF MEASURES AGREED
  In the course of its discussions the working group considered a number of measures designed to ensure the continued protection of World Service interests under the restructuring proposals put forward by the BBC. The following are the principal measures agreed with respect to financial and economic issues, the maintenance of the quality of World Service news and other programmes including management issues, and the FCO/World Service relationship.
  Financial and economic

  (i) BBC to draw up new guidelines to govern the trading relationship between World Service and BBC supplier departments. These will be subject to periodic internal review, independent external monitoring and an effective financial penalty clause. Guidelines to be approved by NAO.

  (ii) Financial mechanisms to be developed to ensure proper allocation of the cost of overseas correspondents.

  (iii) The FCO/BBC financial memorandum to be redrafted to incorporate new financial mechanisms.

  (iv) The BBC's fair trading guidelines to be revised to incorporate the commitment that FCO grant in aid funds cannot he used for non-World Service purposes.

  (v) NAO to examine the functioning of the new financial mechanisms after six months of operation.

  (vi) Arrangement for appointing the Accounting Officer of the World Service to be re-examined in separate discussions between FCO and BBC.

  (vii) Proposals for alternative methods of managing World Service Capital Assets to be examined in separate discussions between FCO and the BBC.

  (viii) BBC proposals on future savings to be considered further when all necessary information is available.

  874
  Quality
  News and current affairs programmes

  (ix) World Service news and real-time current affairs programmes to be produced by a dedicated unit within BBC News co-located with the World Service including the vernacular services. Dedicated team members to be appointed for a period of time agreed with World Service.

  (x) World Service to specify additional competencies and training for staff working on the supply of such programmes and services.

  (xi) World Service programme commissioners to have full editorial responsibility rooted in the power to specify the agenda, range and breadth of news programmes and services as well as their style, content and distinctive voice. There would also be provision for an internal review process with, in cases of disagreement, referral to senior management up to the director general. The board of governors to be made aware of any such referrals. This internal review process to feed into the BBC's annual performance review by the Director General to the Chairman and Board of Governors.

  (xii) World Service to be represented on all senior appointment boards of significance to the provision of World Service output. All appointments concerned to be jointly agreed. World Service to approve individual presenters for all key programmes.

  (xiii) World Service to have the right within the specification agreed between World Service and BBC News to require programming to cover particular events or to respond to breaking news.

  Newsgathering
  (xiv) World Service to have power to require that strategic deployment of newsgathering resources including geographical spread is appropriate to range and breadth of World Service needs. Correspondents' assignment briefs to spell out their responsibilities to World Service.
  Co-location
  (xv) Co-location between the team producing World Service news and current affairs programmes and the vernacular services to be given top priority. Any period of separation to be kept to a minimum and entered upon only if and when the World Service has agreed that the advantages significantly outweighed the disadvantages.
  General programmes

  (xvi) BBC to ensure that staff of BBC Production are fully briefed and trained on special requirements of World Service and that there are regular interchanges of staff.

  (xvii) Programme commissioners to have extensive powers to specify target audience, strategic objectives, style and content of programmes as well as wide freedom to commission as they see fit from within and outside BBC.

  Management

  (xviii) Managing Director World Service to attend meetings of BBC executive committee whenever World Service issues are to be discussed. World Service to be represented on BBC executive committee by the deputy director general.

  (xix) BBC to strengthen oversight of World Service by BBC board of governors, including the establishment of new procedures to approve strategy and review performance and to ensure that any disagreements between World Service commissioners and BBC production are made known to the governors. An independent advisory panel to be established under the chairmanship of a BBC governor to advise the governors on World Service output and performance.

  FCO/World Service relationship
  (xx) The World Service's relationship with the FCO to remain unaffected by the restructuring.
  875

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new gun licences have been issued in England and Wales since 1 January. [40113]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Statistics on firearm and shotgun licences are collected centrally only on an annual basis. Statistics for 1996 will be published in the spring of 1997.

  Sir Michael Sheresby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many deaths occurred as the result of shooting in which unregistered and illegally held firearms was used during each of the past 10 years; [40322]

  (2) in how many cases during the past 10 years police officers in England and Wales have been killed by a registered firearm used (a) by the licence holder and (b) by a third party; [40320]

  (3) how many deaths have occurred in each of the past 10 years as a result of gunshot wounds in which a registered firearm was used (a) by the holder of the firearms licence and (b) by an unauthorised third party; [40319]

  (4) in how many cases during the past 10 years police officers in England and Wales have been killed by an unregistered and illegally held firearm. [40321]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information as to whether firearms used in offences of homicide are legally held is not at present routinely collected centrally.

  However, a special exercise has been recently carried out to find out whether the guns used in homicide were licensed or not.

  This covered the years 1992 to 1994, and out of a total of 196 homicides, information was available in 152 cases to show that 22 cases—14 per cent.—involved the use of a legally held firearm. In 5 per cent. of homicides in which the weapons were not legally held by a suspect, the weapons were believed to have been stolen—seven out of 130. For 88 of these offences, however, the police reported that they did not know whether the firearm had been stolen or not.

  During the period of the survey, one police officer and one special constable were shot and killed, the firearms being illegally held.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notifiable offences were recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used in Wales in 1995. [40052]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not yet available for 1995, but is due for publication in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1995" on 7 November.

  Emergencies
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which bodies have statutory duties for and what statutory bodies have responsibilities for providing emergency assistance to(a) those trapped in vehicles after road accidents, (b) householders or owners of commercial or industrial premises who have been
  876
  subject to unexpected flooding and (c) persons trapped in lifts, when no local assistance is able to release them, giving in each case how the bodies are funded for such activities. [40362]

  Mr. Sackville
  Under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947, a fire authority has a duty to make provision for firefighting purposes, and in particular to secure the services of a fire brigade and equipment in order to meet efficiently all normal requirements. Section 3(1)(e) of the 1947 Act gives a fire authority supplementary powers to employ its brigade for purposes other than firefighting, such as those referred to in the question. The police service has no statutory responsibility or duty as such to provide assistance in respect of such incidents, although it may well do so in practice. The role of the ambulance service is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Fire authorities are financed from council tax, national non-domestic rates and revenue support grant.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to make an announcement regarding the future of section 11 funding; which and what percentage of projects currently in operation will be guaranteed funding until March 1998; and if he will make a statement. [40582]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have under active consideration the position regarding further section 11 funding from next April onwards. Although we are not yet in a position to make an announcement, I expect to be able to do so shortly.

  Betting
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the law in relation to betting on the national lottery; and if he will make a statement. [40771]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There are no plans at present to change the law in relation to betting on the national lottery.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation on the deregulation of casinos, bingo clubs and advertising of commercial gambling. [41077]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  On 27 February, we went out lo consultation on a package of measures to relax certain controls on casinos, bingo clubs and advertising of commercial gambling. This is a general report on the outcome of that consultation and our plans for taking the changes forward.

  Casinos

  The deregulation proposals received general support. I have laid a draft deregulation order today for Parliamentary scrutiny;

  allowing casinos in England and Wales to sell alcohol up to 2 am (3 am in London);

  reducing the waiting period for casino membership from 48 to 24 hours.

  I also plan to lay a draft order later this year allowing payment by debit cards in casinos and bingo clubs.
  877
  I hope in the next few weeks to publish a consultation document about the precise form of the deregulation orders allowing:

  postal applications for membership;

  group membership;

  limited advertising;

  casino slot machines.

  Permitted areas for casinos

  In February we proposed to allow casinos in 13 new locations. The new areas attracted support from their local councils, with the exception of Croydon and Peterborough. I intend to finalise that list in the light of the comments received.

  We have also received representations from other areas. I do not think it appropriate to add an unmanageable number or to depart radically from the original proposals, but I am considering the case for some additions. New permitted areas can be implemented by secondary legislation, but I will need to address the resource, timing and other practical implications before any are introduced. I will make my intentions clear in the next few weeks.

  Bingo

  There has been a mixed response from inside and outside the industry to the proposals to abolish the demand criterion for bingo licence applications, the requirement to operate as clubs and the 24 hour waiting period for membership. In the light of the representations received I do not propose to proceed with those measures.

  I am still assessing the detailed responses to the other proposals affecting bingo clubs. I will give priority to a measure abolishing advertising restrictions and will then examine further the move to three yearly licences. I would also like to allow simplified charging in bingo clubs, subject to advice from the Gaming Board following discussions with the industry.

  Advertising betting shops

  I also plan later in the year to bring forward a measure allowing non-broadcast advertising of betting shops.

  R v. Preddy
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government intend to take to deal with the effect of the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of R v. Preddy. [41078]

  Mr. Howard
  The Law Commission has today published report No. 243, "Offences of Dishonesty: Money Transfers", in which it examines the implications of the House of Lords judgment in Rv. Preddy, building on its earlier work on its report No. 228, "Conspiracy to Defraud". The Government accept the law Commission's recommendations, and will introduce legislation to give effect to its proposals at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Immigration
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans for the reintroduction of compulsory application forms for foreign nationals wishing to apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom following the suspension of the scheme on 6 June. [41079]
  878
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The compulsory application forms system introduced on 3 June was suspended after three days following legal challenge. Having heard the arguments, we were persuaded that it was right to make changes and the forms have therefore been revised to take account of the issues raised. Copies of the newly prescribed versions have been placed in the Library. The new forms will be compulsory for applications made on or after 25 November. As before, the scheme does not cover applications under European Community law or applications for asylum.

  Application forms are designed to help applicants and to improve efficiency. They set out the basic information that an applicant must provide. The compulsory forms scheme is being introduced following a successful 12 months pilot scheme which demonstrated a clear demand for application forms. During the pilot scheme applicants showed themselves willing and able to use the forms and where forms were used applications were resolved more quickly and the need to make further inquiries was greatly reduced. Application forms benefit the applicant, the immigration system and the taxpayer. They are being introduced in order to demonstrate the high priority the Government attach to a fair and efficient manner of immigration control.

  Criminal Justice (Delays)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work is in hand to reduce delay in the criminal justice process. [40180]

  Mr. Howard
  Following the report of the royal commission on criminal justice and the efficiency scrutiny of administrative burdens on the police, efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice process have been taken forward by officials from my Department, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service through the trial issues group. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I believe that it is now appropriate to explore additional means of reducing the time that it takes to deal with cases. We have therefore set up a review urgently to identify means of expediting the progress of criminal cases from initiation to resolution, consistently with the interests of justice. The review will examine the scope for improvements within current structures as well as those which might require new legislation. We expect a report next January.

  Asylum and Immigration Act 1996
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) communications and (b) consultations have taken place on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and instruments made under it, with the Commission of the European Communities and with member states under Commission decision 88/384/EEC and article 118 of the EC treaty; on what dates; by what means; and if he will place in the Library the documents concerned. [40509]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: None. These matters are covered by the arrangements for intergovernmental co-operation under title VI of the treaty on European Union.
  879

  Police (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to provide that police officers will be covered by health and safety requirements; [40232]

  (2) when he expects the ad hoc working group on health and safety management in the police service to complete its work; [40230]

  (3) when he plans to produce his Department's advice in the form of a Home Office circular on health and safety in the police force. [40231]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: I have today announced the Government's proposals to amend the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the corresponding Northern Ireland legislation so that it extends to the work of police officers, police cadets and special constables. The ad hoc working group on the management of health and safety in the police service has completed the first phase of its work. We have today issued to police forces in the United Kingdom practical guidance on the application of the health and safety legislation to the duties of police officers. A copy of this guidance has been placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Intervention Board performed against its targets for 1995–96; and what key performance targets Agriculture Ministers have set the agency for 1996–97. [40948]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is as follows:

  1995–96

  Target

  Performance

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  98.5 per cent.

  99.9 per cent.

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98.5 per cent.

  99.2 per cent.

  Cumulative running cost efficiency gains

  2.5 per cent.

  3.3 per cent.

  Improvement in index of productivity

  6.0 per cent.

  3.9 per cent.

  Ratio of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0.4 per cent.

  1—

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limited

  —

  Met

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  6.0 per cent.

  8.8 per cent.

  Yield: cost ratio of anti-fraud activities

  3.0:1.0

  3.7:1.0

  1 A decision covering the clearance of the 1993 EAGGF accounts is still awaited.

  880
  In agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I have set the following targets for 1996–97:

  Target

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  99.0 per cent.

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98.5 per cent.

  Cumulative running cost efficiency gains

  2.5 per cent.

  Improvement in index of productivity

  6.0 per cent.

  Ratio of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0.4 per cent.

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limited

  —

  New value for money savings in procurement of goods and services

  6.0 per cent.

  Yield: cost ratio of anti-fraud activities

  3.0: 1.0

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Inspections
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for North Thanet, (Mr. Gale) of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1017 if she will publish the advice from Her Majesty's chief inspector on a more targeted approach in the second cycle of inspection. [39919]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 16 September that she had accepted in full the chief inspector's recommendations to move to a more targeted programme of inspection. The key elements of the new arrangements, which will take effect from the end of the first cycle, are that: each school will be subject to a full inspection within a six-year period, instead of every four years as at present: weaker schools should be inspected more frequently; seriously weak schools will be specifically identified within registered inspectors' reports; and that special visits will be made to schools which are models of good practice.

  The Secretary of State has deposited copies of the chief inspector's recommendations and of her response in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Teacher Training Courses
  Mr Bunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number and percentage of teachers who completed training courses in 1994, broken down by subject and in total; and who were in posts by March 1995. [39928]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the number of teachers who successfully completed Bachelor of Education or Postgraduate Certificate of Education courses leading to qualified teacher status in 1994 and their position as at 31 March 1995.
  881

  Number of completers1 in England and Wales Calendar year 1994

  1994 completers in service at 31 March 1995 in the maintained schools sector in England and Wales2

  In service as a percentage of completers

  Primary

  12,643

  8,756

  69

  Secondary (by subject of ITT)

  Maths

  1,598

  974

  61

  English

  1,389

  1,023

  74

  Science

  2,089

  1,384

  66

  Modern foreign language

  1,484

  1,021

  69

  Technology

  1,526

  900

  59

  History

  649

  470

  72

  Geography

  563

  421

  75

  Art

  730

  398

  55

  Music

  447

  318

  71

  Religious education

  344

  232

  67

  Physical education

  968

  656

  68

  Other

  1,123

  662

  59

  Total secondary

  12,910

  8,459

  66

  Total primary and secondary

  25,553

  17,215

  67

  Notes:

  1 Excludes 131 students who successfully completed School Centred Initial Teacher Training in 1994.:

  2 Details of service as at 31/3/95 are provisional. Includes service in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special education sector. Service details are available for some, but not all, teachers in the independent and further and higher education sectors. Around 1,110—per cent.—of the 1994 completers are known to have entered service in these sectors, but are not included in the table.

  Source:

  Database of Teachers' Records.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information from Office for Standards in Education inspections of providers under the nursery voucher scheme will be made available to parents; and when. [40389]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vouchers for nursery education have not been redeemed to date during phase I of the nursery voucher scheme. [40385]

  Mr. Squire
  Nursery education vouchers were issued in respect of 14,711 children for the summer term of 1996. Of these, 1,372—some 9 per cent.—have not been redeemed.

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the difference is between the number of vouchers issued under phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme and the number of places available in each of the four pilot areas. [40383]
  882
  Mr. Squire
  The number of vouchers issued for summer term 1996 in each of the phase 1 authorities is shown in the table. Information on the number of places available for children eligible for vouchers is not held centrally.

  Number of vouchers issued

  Norfolk

  8,976

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,151

  Wandsworth

  3,170

  Westminster

  1,414

  Ms Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many providers have participated to date in phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme. [40390]

  Mr. Squire
  Some 1,141 providers, of which 647 are in the private and voluntary sectors, have participated in the scheme to date.

  Ms. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of new providers established since the introduction of phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme. [40386]

  Mr. Squire
  Any provider that is not a maintained or independent school has to be registered under the Children Act 1989. Our records do not show whether an institution was established specifically in response to the introduction of the scheme.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will request each of the four local education authorities operating the vouchers scheme for pre-school education to publish an estimate of the number of places in all settings that will be required in each of their areas if 90 per cent. of eligible pupils' parents apply for vouchers. [40403]

  Mr. Squire
  The table shows the estimated number of eligible children in each of the phase 1 authorities and 90 per cent. thereof. These estimates of population are less reliable when broken down both by local authority area and by year group.

  LEA

  Estimated number of eligible children

  90 per cent. of estimated number of eligible children

  Norfolk

  9,300

  8,370

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,650

  1,485

  Wandsworth

  3,300

  2,970

  Westminster

  1,900

  1,710

  Schools White Paper
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the pamphlet "Self-Government for Schools: A Summary" was accompanied with a letter noting that the White Paper is a consultation paper; and in what form responses to the consultation were invited. [40586]
  883
  Mr. Forth
  A summary of the White Paper "Self-Government for Schools" was sent to the head teachers and chairmen of governors of all local education authority-maintained and grant-maintained schools. It was accompanied by a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The letter invited comments on the White Paper by 4 October, gave details of where they should be sent, and noted that each school was eligible for one free copy of the White Paper on request.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses her Department has received to the consultation on the 'White Paper "Self-Government for Schools", listed by type of organisation consulted; which consultees responded favourably; which consultees offered criticisms; and what was the nature of these criticisms. [40588]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received some 600 responses to the White Paper by the deadline of 4 October. We are currently analysing the responses. A summary will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many copies of "Self-Government for Schools: A Summary" were sent out; to which bodies; and at what total cost. [40585]

  Mr. Forth
  The summary of the White Paper "Self-Government for Schools" was sent to the head teachers and chairmen of governors of all local education authorities-maintained and grant-maintained schools. It has also been made available to interested parties on request. Over 70,000 copies have so far been issued. The cost of producing and distributing the summaries sent to schools was some £18,000.

  Students (Hardship Funds)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students applied for hardship funds in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 for (i) further and (ii) higher education, and if she will make a statement. [40579]

  Mr. Forth
  The purpose of the hardship funds, correctly known as the access funds, is to provide financial help to students whose access to further or higher education might be inhibited by financial considerations or who, for whatever reason, including physical or other disabilities, face financial difficulties.

  From the information provided by institutions, the number of eligible applicants for further and higher education access funds were as follows:

  Academic year

  Further education

  Higher education

  1993–94

  41,668

  77,060

  1994–95

  51,027

  77,005

  1995–96

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a=not yet available.

  884

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) statistics and (b) representations her Department has assessed regarding spending on (i) discretionary awards and (ii) special needs by local education authorities in England in 1995–96 and 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [40545]

  Mr. Forth
  The latest available data from local education authorities on discretionary awards are for the academic year 1994–95. Provisional national data were published in a departmental press notice—110/96—on 1 April 1996. Final data, including information from individual local education authorities, will be published on 22 November in the statistics of education student support volume, 1994–95. Provisional data at national level for the academic year 1995–96 will be available in spring 1997.

  Both the number and level of discretionary awards have been in decline recently. Representations have been made about this by a wide range of bodies representing the interests of students and institutions in dance and drama, horticulture and agriculture, legal practice and other disciplines. These are matters for local education authorities, who decide which students to support and at what rates in the light of local needs and priorities and the resources available.

  Funds for special education are contained within the education standard spending assessment but cannot be separately identified. Local education authorities can and do spend more or less than their education SSA on education services.

  Teaching Publicity
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the amount spent on publicity and promotion for each year since 1994, by the Teacher Training Agency (i) in total and (ii) broken down into components; how many calls are received annually by the telephone line promoting teaching as a career; and what evidence she has assessed to indicate that the telephone line has improved recruitment. [40587]

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for the Teacher Training Agency. I will ask the chairman of the agency, Geoffrey Parker, to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average size of single teacher classes in primary schools in January in each local education authority and in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in numbers compared' with January 1995 in each local education authority and in total.
  885
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is shown in the table:

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1995 and 1996 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  Average class size

  Change2

  LEA

  1995

  11996

  Number 1995–96

  Percentage 1995–96

  Corporation of London

  26.8

  26.8

  0.0

  0.0

  Camden

  27.3

  27.3

  -0.1

  -0.3

  Greenwich

  26.4

  25.5

  -0.9

  -3.2

  Hackney

  26.1

  26.1

  0.0

  -0.1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25.6

  26.1

  0.5

  1.8

  Islington

  26.6

  26.2

  -0.3

  -1.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  25.1

  24.4

  -0.7

  -2.8

  Lambeth

  24.6

  24.6

  0.0

  -0.2

  Lewisham

  25.4

  25.7

  0.3

  1.1

  Southwark

  26.9

  26.1

  -0.8

  -2.9

  Tower Hamlets

  26.7

  25.8

  -0.9

  -3.5

  Wandsworth

  25.2

  25.4

  0.2

  0.9

  Westminster

  25.3

  24.9

  -0.4

  -1.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  26.7

  26.7

  0.0

  -0.1

  Barnet

  26.5

  26.3

  -0.2

  -0.8

  Bexley

  28.6

  28.6

  0.0

  0.1

  Brent

  26.9

  26.7

  -0.2

  -0.7

  Bromley

  28.4

  28.7

  0.3

  1.0

  Croydon

  28.1

  28.3

  0.2

  0.8

  Ealing

  26.6

  27.2

  0.6

  2.2

  Enfield

  28.4

  28.5

  0.1

  0.5

  Haringey

  27.2

  27.0

  -0.2

  -0.6

  Harrow

  27.1

  27.8

  0.7

  2.8

  Havering

  27.4

  27.9

  0.5

  2.0

  Hillingdon

  26.8

  26.6

  -0.2

  -0.9

  Hounslow

  27.4

  27.3

  -0.1

  -0.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  29.5

  30.0

  0.5

  1.8

  Merton

  27.0

  28.1

  1.1

  4.0

  Newham

  27.5

  27.9

  0.3

  1.2

  Redbridge

  29.2

  29.0

  -0.2

  -0.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  26.1

  26.7

  0.5

  2.0

  Sutton

  28.0

  27.3

  -0.7

  -2.4

  Waltham Forest

  26.5

  26.4

  -0.1

  -0.3

  Birmingham

  28.2

  27.8

  -0.4

  -1.5

  Coventry

  27.8

  27.2

  -0.6

  -2.2

  Dudley

  27.3

  26.9

  -0.4

  -1.5

  Sandwell

  28.2

  28.6

  0.4

  1.4

  Solihull

  27.6

  28.2

  0.6

  2.0

  Walsall

  26.0

  26.0

  -0.1

  -0.4

  Wolverhampton

  26.2

  26.5

  0.3

  1.1

  Knowsley

  28.0

  27.6

  -0.3

  -1.2

  Liverpool

  27.1

  26.8

  -0.3

  -1.1

  St. Helens

  27.0

  27.5

  0.5

  1.7

  Sefton

  27.6

  27.5

  -0.1

  -0.3

  Wirral

  26.1

  26.4

  0.3

  1.1

  Bolton

  28.7

  28.5

  -0.2

  -0.8

  Bury

  27.8

  28.3

  0.5

  1.9

  Manchester

  26.9

  27.0

  0.1

  0.5

  Oldham

  28.5

  28.6

  0.1

  0.3

  Rochdale

  29.2

  29.2

  0.0

  -0.1

  Salford

  27.3

  27.4

  0.1

  0.5

  Stockport

  27.5

  27.7

  0.3

  1.0

  Tameside

  29.5

  29.3

  -0.2

  -0.5

  Trafford

  29.0

  28.7

  -0.3

  -1.2

  Wigan

  28.0

  28.2

  0.2

  0.6

  Barnsley

  27.5

  28.2

  11.7

  2.7

  Doncaster

  28.1

  28.2

  0.1

  0.5

  Rotherham

  25.8

  26.9

  1.1

  4.4

  Sheffield

  26.8

  26.8

  0.0

  -0.1

  Bradford

  27.8

  27.9

  0.1

  0.4

  Calderdale

  27.5

  27.7

  0.2

  0.7

  Kirklees

  28.2

  28.7

  0.4

  1.5

  Leeds

  28.2

  28.1

  -0.1

  -0.3

  Wakefield

  27.9

  28.0

  0.1

  0.3

  Gateshead

  26.0

  25.9

  -0.1

  -0.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27.6

  27.7

  0.1

  0.4

  North Tyneside

  26.9

  27.0

  0.2

  0.6

  South Tyneside

  26.3

  26.8

  0.5

  1.8

  Sunderland

  25.4

  25.6

  0.3

  1.0

  Isles of Scilly

  17.3

  13.7

  -3.6

  -20.8

  Avon

  27.8

  27.7

  -0.1

  -0.5

  Bedfordshire

  26.8

  27.1

  0.3

  1.1

  886

  Average size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England 1995 and 1996 (provisional)

  Position in January each year

  Average class size

  Change2

  LEA

  1995

  11996

  Number 1995–96

  Percentage 1995–96

  Berkshire

  27.0

  27.3

  0.3

  1.2

  Buckinghamshire

  27.3

  27.8

  0.4

  1.5

  Cambridge

  27.3

  27.8

  0.5

  1.9

  Cheshire

  27.3

  27.4

  0.1

  0.5

  Cleveland

  26.9

  26.9

  0.0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  27.0

  27.3

  0.3

  1.1

  Cumbria

  26.2

  26.0

  -0.2

  -0.8

  Derbyshire

  27.9

  28.9

  1.0

  3.7

  Devon

  26.7

  27.2

  0.5

  1.8

  Dorset

  27.6

  27.7

  0.1

  0.3

  Durham

  27.7

  28.4

  0.8

  2.8

  East Sussex

  27.5

  27.7

  0.2

  0.8

  Essex

  26.9

  26.9

  0.0

  0.1

  Gloucestershire

  26.7

  27.2

  0.5

  2.0

  Hampshire

  27.7

  27.8

  0.1

  0.4

  Hereford and Worcester

  25.5

  25.9

  0.4

  1.4

  Hertfordshire

  26.5

  26.7

  0.2

  0.7

  Humberside

  27.7

  27.9

  0.2

  0.7

  Isle of Wight

  26.3

  26.9

  0.6

  2.4

  Kent

  27.7

  27.7

  0.0

  0.1

  Lancashire

  27.9

  28.4

  0.6

  2.0

  Leicestershire

  26.5

  26.7

  0.3

  1.0

  Lincolnshire

  26.8

  26.7

  -0.1

  -0.4

  Norfolk

  25.4

  26.0

  0.6

  2.4

  North Yorkshire

  26.2

  26.3

  0.1

  0.3

  Northamptonshire

  26.7

  26.5

  -0.1

  -0.5

  Northumberland

  27.2

  27.1

  0.0

  -0.1

  Nottinghamshire

  27.4

  28.3

  0.9

  3.4

  Oxfordshire

  25.9

  26.8

  0.9

  3.6

  Shropshire

  26.6

  27.3

  0.7

  2.8

  Somerset

  27.0

  27.3

  0.3

  1.2

  Staffordshire

  27.6

  27.7

  0.1

  0.4

  Suffolk

  24.9

  25.1

  0.2

  0.9

  Surrey

  25.6

  25.8

  0.2

  0.7

  Warwickshire

  26.9

  27.9

  1.0

  3.8

  West Sussex

  26.5

  26.8

  0.2

  0.9

  Wiltshire

  26.9

  27.1

  0.3

  0.9

  England

  27.1

  27.3

  0.2

  0.7

  1 Provisional.

  2 Rounding of components may cause discrepancies in number and percentage changes. The comparable average class size in 1979 was 25.9.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage, and how many primary school pupils were in classes of over 30 in January in each local education authority and in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in numbers compared with January 1995 in each local education authority and in total. [40159]

  Mr. Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 14 October 1996.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage and how many primary school pupils were in classes of over 36 in January in each local education authority and in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in numbers compared with January 1995 in each local education authority and in total. [40160]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  887

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of size 37 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 1995 and 1996 (provisional)

  1995

  1996

  Change

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  Pupils

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage3

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  0

  0.0

  37

  0.4

  37

  4—

  Greenwich

  50

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -50

  -100.0

  Hackney

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lewisham

  84

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  -84

  -100.0

  Southwark

  37

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  -37

  -100.0

  Tower Hamlets

  50

  0.3

  37

  0.3

  -13

  -26.0

  Wandsworth

  77

  0.5

  296

  2.1

  219

  284.4

  Westminster

  39

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  -39

  -100.0

  Barking

  323

  2.1

  272

  1.8

  -51

  -15.8

  Barnet

  76

  0.4

  164

  0.8

  88

  115.8

  Bexley

  37

  0.2

  112

  0.5

  75

  202.7

  Brent

  346

  1.8

  170

  0.9

  -176

  -50.9

  Bromley

  111

  0.5

  150

  0.6

  39

  35.1

  Croydon

  38

  0.2

  78

  0.3

  40

  105.3

  Ealing

  78

  0.4

  118

  0.5

  40

  51.3

  Enfield

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Haringey

  39

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  -39

  -100.0

  Harrow

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  37

  0.2

  127

  0.6

  90

  243.2

  Hillingdon

  477

  2.6

  387

  2.1

  -90

  -18.9

  Hounslow

  540

  3.2

  462

  2.8

  -78

  -14.4

  Kingston upon Thames

  76

  0.8

  197

  2.0

  121

  159.2

  Merton

  217

  1.7

  359

  2.8

  142

  65.4

  Newham

  76

  0.3

  204

  0.8

  128

  168.4

  Redbridge

  111

  0.7

  74

  0.4

  -37

  -33.3

  Richmond upon Thames

  60

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  -60

  -100.0

  Sutton

  78

  0.6

  115

  0.9

  37

  47.4

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  1,079

  1.1

  1,277

  1.3

  198

  18.4

  Coventry

  571

  2.1

  386

  1.4

  -185

  -32.4

  Dudley

  1,141

  4.7

  1,085

  4.4

  -56

  -4.9

  Sandwell

  589

  2.1

  895

  3.1

  306

  52.0

  Solihull

  341

  1.8

  339

  1.8

  -2

  -0.6

  Walsall

  193

  0.8

  458

  2.0

  265

  137.3

  Wolverhampton

  230

  1.1

  610

  2.8

  380

  165.2

  Knowsley

  591

  3.3

  475

  2.6

  -116

  -19.6

  Liverpool

  569

  1.2

  338

  0.7

  -231

  -40.6

  St Helens

  687

  4.7

  807

  5.5

  120

  17.5

  Sefton

  262

  1.0

  417

  1.7

  155

  59.2

  Wirral

  339

  1.2

  338

  1.2

  -1

  -0.3

  Bolton

  1,420

  6.3

  1,751

  7.4

  331

  23.3

  Bury

  261

  1.7

  267

  1.7

  6

  2.3

  Manchester

  789

  1.9

  1,539

  3.6

  750

  95.1

  Oldham

  574

  2.7

  598

  2.8

  24

  4.2

  Rochdale

  272

  1.4

  233

  1.2

  -39

  -14.3

  Salford

  595

  2.6

  887

  3.9

  292

  49.1

  Stockport

  608

  2.5

  878

  3.5

  270

  44.4

  Tameside

  306

  1.4

  452

  2.1

  146

  47.7

  Trafford

  946

  5.0

  419

  2.2

  -527

  -55.7

  Wigan

  1,138

  4.3

  1,377

  5.3

  239

  21.0

  Barnsley

  504

  2.5

  499

  2.4

  -5

  -1.0

  Doncaster

  1,358

  5.2

  1,163

  4.3

  -195

  -14.4

  Rotherham

  200

  0.9

  314

  1.4

  114

  57.0

  Sheffield

  1,328

  3.4

  1,389

  3.5

  61

  4.6

  Bradford

  883

  2.7

  1,309

  3.9

  426

  48.2

  Calderdale

  0

  0.0

  197

  1.1

  197

  4—

  888 889

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of size 37 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 1995 and 1996 (provisional)

  1995

  1996

  Change

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  Pupils

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage3

  Kirklecs

  1,140

  3.5

  1,489

  4.6

  349

  30.6

  Leeds

  2,190

  3.6

  2,354

  3.9

  164

  7.5

  Wakefield

  1,440

  5.2

  1,206

  4.3

  -234

  -16.3

  Gateshead

  117

  0.7

  80

  0.5

  -37

  -31.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  710

  3.5

  623

  3.0

  -87

  -12.3

  North Tyneside

  283

  1.9

  395

  2.6

  112

  39.6

  South Tyneside

  562

  3.8

  484

  3.3

  -78

  -13.9

  Sunderland

  155

  0.6

  113

  0.4

  -42

  -27.1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  613

  0.8

  867

  1.1

  254

  41.4

  Bedfordshire

  1,824

  4.7

  2,094

  5.4

  270

  14.8

  Berkshire

  625

  1.1

  622

  1.0

  -3

  -0.5

  Buckinghamshire

  2,247

  3.8

  2,404

  4.0

  157

  7.0

  Cambridgeshire

  375

  0.7

  414

  0.7

  39

  10.4

  Cheshire

  1,717

  2.0

  2,035

  2.4

  318

  18.5

  Cleveland

  2,131

  3.6

  2,126

  3.6

  -5

  -0.2

  Cornwall

  766

  1.9

  533

  1.3

  -233

  -30.4

  Cumbria

  682

  1.7

  756

  1.9

  74

  10.9

  Derybshire

  3,116

  4.0

  7,176

  9.1

  4,060

  130.3

  Devon

  879

  1.1

  1,412

  1.8

  533

  60.6

  Dorset

  188

  0.4

  388

  0.9

  200

  106.4

  Durham

  844

  1.6

  1,123

  2.2

  279

  33.1

  East Sussex

  74

  0.2

  336

  0.7

  262

  354.1

  Essex

  417

  0.3

  372

  0.3

  -45

  -10.8

  Gloucestershire

  155

  0.4

  306

  0.7

  151

  97.4

  Hampshire

  1,257

  1.0

  1,416

  1.1

  159

  12.6

  Hereford and Worcester

  306

  0.6

  598

  1.2

  292

  95.4

  Hertfordshire

  194

  0.2

  225

  0.3

  31

  16.0

  Humberside

  3,272

  4.1

  3,114

  3.9

  -158

  -4.8

  Isle of Wight

  39

  0.6

  115

  1.6

  76

  194.9

  Kent

  359

  0.3

  508

  0.4

  149

  41.5

  Lancashire

  2,834

  2.3

  3,922

  3.2

  1,088

  38.4

  Leicestershire

  1,117

  1.5

  1,826

  2.4

  709

  63.5

  Lincolnshire

  497

  1.0

  572

  1.1

  75

  15.1

  Norfolk

  93

  0.2

  348

  0.6

  255

  274.2

  North Yorkshire

  1,108

  2.0

  932

  1.6

  -176

  -15.9

  Northamptonshire

  188

  0.4

  504

  1.0

  316

  168.1

  Northumberland

  662

  3.4

  581

  3.0

  -81

  -12.2

  Nottinghamshire

  2,973

  3.6

  3,257

  3.9

  284

  9.6

  Oxfordshire

  410

  1.0

  775

  1.9

  365

  89.0

  Shropshire

  416

  1.2

  516

  1.5

  100

  24.0

  Somerset

  204

  0.6

  341

  0.9

  137

  67.2

  Staffordshire

  3,282

  3.7

  3,623

  4.0

  341

  10.4

  Suffolk

  74

  0.2

  76

  0.2

  2

  2.7

  Surrey

  592

  0.9

  360

  0.5

  -232

  -39.2

  Warwickshire

  678

  1.6

  658

  1.5

  -20

  -2.9

  West Sussex

  336

  0.6

  153

  0.3

  -183

  -54.5

  Wiltshire

  336

  0.7

  377

  0.8

  41

  12.2

  England

  65,308

  1.7

  78,561

  2.0

  13,253

  20.3

  1 Provisional.

  2 Number of pupils in single teacher classes of size 37 or more expressed a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  3 Change in the number of pupils in single teacher classes of 37 or more between 1995 and 1996 expressed as a percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 37 or more in 1995.

  4 No pupils in single teacher classes of 37 or more taught by one teacher in 1995.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage and how many primary school pupils were in classes of over 40 in January in each local education authority and in total; and what was the actual and percentage change in number compared 890
  with January 1995 in each local education authority and in total. [40161]

  Mr. Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table:
  891

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of size 41 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 1995 and 1996 (provisional)

  Position in January in each year

  1995

  1996

  Change

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  Pupils

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage3

  Corporation of London

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Greenwich

  50

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -50

  -100.0

  Hackney

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Islington

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lambeth

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Lewisham

  47

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -47

  -100.0

  Southwark

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Tower Hamlets

  50

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -50

  -100.0

  Wandsworth

  0

  0.0

  62

  0.4

  62

  4—

  Westminster

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Barking

  52

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -52

  -100.0

  Barnet

  0

  0.0

  48

  0.2

  48

  4—

  Bexley

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Brent

  188

  1.0

  95

  0.5

  -93

  -49.5

  Bromley

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Croydon

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Ealing

  0

  0.0

  44

  0.2

  44

  4—

  Enfield

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0 0

  Haringey

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0 0

  Harrow

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Havering

  0

  0.0

  50

  0.3

  50

  4—

  Hillingdon

  86

  0.5

  41

  0.2

  -45

  -52.3

  Hounslow

  41

  0.2

  41

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0.0

  47

  0.5

  47

  4—

  Merton

  138

  1.1

  51

  0.4

  -87

  -63.0

  Newham

  0

  0.0

  52

  0.2

  52

  4—

  Redbridge

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  60

  0.6

  0

  0.0

  -60

  -100.0

  Sutton

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Birmingham

  107

  0.1

  157

  0.2

  50

  46.7

  Coventry

  75

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -75

  -100.0

  Dudley

  867

  3.6

  775

  3.2

  -92

  -10.6

  Sandwell

  42

  0.2

  83

  0.3

  41

  97.6

  Solihull

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Walsall

  42

  0.2

  45

  0.2

  3

  7.1

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0.0

  233

  1.1

  233

  4—

  Knowsley

  52

  0.3

  52

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  Liverpool

  230

  0.5

  0

  0.0

  -230

  -100.0

  St. Helens

  0

  0.0

  83

  0.6

  83

  4—

  Sefton

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wirral

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Bolton

  194

  0.9

  535

  2.3

  341

  175.8

  Bury

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Manchester

  177

  0.4

  582

  1.4

  405

  228.8

  Oldham

  188

  0.9

  178

  0.8

  -10

  -5.3

  Rochdale

  87

  0.4

  41

  0.2

  -46

  -52.9

  Salford

  94

  0.4

  314

  1.4

  220

  234.0

  Stockport

  47

  0.2

  117

  0.5

  70

  148.9

  Tameside

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Trafford

  41

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  -41

  -100.0

  Wigan

  87

  0.3

  127

  0.5

  40

  46.0

  Barnsley

  193

  1.0

  152

  0.7

  -41

  -21.2

  Doncaster

  41

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  -41

  -100.0

  Rotherham

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Sheffield

  244

  0.6

  229

  0.6

  -15

  -6.1

  Bradford

  0

  0.0

  43

  0.1

  43

  4—

  Calderdale

  0

  0.0

  45

  0.2

  45

  4—

  Kirklees

  91

  0.3

  139

  0.4

  48

  52.7

  Leeds

  266

  0.4

  244

  0.4

  -22

  -8.3

  Wakefield

  54

  0.2

  52

  0.2

  -2

  -3.7

  Gateshead

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  134

  0.7

  49

  0.2

  -85

  -63.4

  892 893

  Numbers and percentages of pupils in classes of size 41 or more taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England: 1995 and 1996 (provisional)

  Position in January in each year

  1995

  1996

  Change

  Pupils

  Percentage1

  Pupils

  Percentage2

  Number

  Percentage3

  North Tyneside

  50

  0.3

  50

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  South Tyneside

  103

  0.7

  99

  0.7

  -4

  -3.9

  Sunderland

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Avon

  92

  0.1

  44

  0.1

  -48

  -52.2

  Bedfordshire

  509

  1.3

  482

  1.2

  -27

  -5.3

  Berkshire

  85

  0.1

  46

  0.1

  -39

  -45.9

  Buckinghamshire

  419

  0.7

  372

  0.6

  -47

  -11.2

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cheshire

  213

  0.2

  142

  0.2

  -71

  -33.3

  Cleveland

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Cornwall

  87

  0.2

  41

  0.1

  -46

  -52.9

  Cumbria

  110

  0.3

  111

  0.3

  1

  0.9

  Derbyshire

  474

  0.6

  722

  0.9

  248

  52.3

  Devon

  45

  0.1

  128

  0.2

  83

  184.4

  Dorset

  0

  0.0

  86

  0.2

  86

  4—

  Durham

  0

  0.0

  167

  0.3

  167

  4—

  East Sussex

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Essex

  230

  0.2

  109

  0.1

  -121

  -52.6

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Hampshire

  46

  0.0

  47

  0.0

  1

  2.2

  Hereford and Worcester

  41

  0.1

  150

  0.3

  109

  265.9

  Hertfordshire

  42

  0.1

  0

  0.0

  -42

  -100.0

  Humberside

  391

  0.5

  229

  0.3

  -162

  -41.4

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Kent

  285

  0.2

  89

  0.1

  -196

  -68.8

  Lancashire

  244

  0.2

  41

  0.0

  -203

  -83.2

  Leicestershire

  424

  0.6

  224

  0.3

  -200

  -47.2

  Lincolnshire

  82

  0.2

  42

  0.1

  -40

  -48.8

  Norfolk

  55

  0.1

  43

  0.1

  -12

  -21.8

  North Yorkshire

  50

  0.1

  140

  0.2

  90

  180.0

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0.0

  42

  0.1

  42

  4—

  Northumberland

  41

  0.2

  0

  0.0

  -41

  -100.0

  Nottinghamshire

  543

  0.7

  212

  0.3

  -331

  -61.0

  Oxfordshire

  98

  0.3

  0

  0.0

  -98

  -100.0

  Shropshire

  0

  0.0

  102

  0.3

  102

  4—

  Somerset

  53

  0.1

  41

  0.1

  -12

  -22.6

  Staffordshire

  657

  0.7

  539

  0.6

  -118

  -18.0

  Suffolk

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Surrey

  89

  0.1

  45

  0.1

  -44

  -49.4

  Warwickshire

  175

  0.4

  44

  0.1

  -131

  -74.9

  West Sussex

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  Wiltshire

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  England

  9,798

  0.3

  9,435

  0.2

  -363

  -3.7

  1 Provisional.

  2 Pupils in single teacher classes of 41 or more expressed as a percentage of all pupils in single teacher classes.

  3Change in the number of pupils in single teacher classes of 41 or more between 1995 and 1996 expressed as a percentage of pupils in single teacher classes of 41 or more in 1995.

  4 No pupils in single teacher classes of 41 or more taught by one teacher in 1995.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to end the administration of student grants by local education authorities. [40558]

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have no plans at present to alter the current arrangements. The national committee of inquiry into higher education has been asked to look into the longer-term funding of higher education, including student support. The committee will report in the summer of 1997.
  894

  Grant for Education Support and Training
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the GEST funding per pupil in(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) local education authority schools, in each local education authority for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [40593]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 October 1996]: The table shows GEST funding per pupil in local authority-maintained schools for 1995–96 and 1996–97 based on the latest available figures. Variations reflect such factors as the impact of bidding and the incidence of

  895
  small schools. Figures for 1994–95 are not readily available. Grant-maintained schools are outside the scope of GEST, but are funded for similar activities through special purpose (development) grant. SPG (D) grant is paid direct to GM schools at the rate of £42.50 per pupil in 1995–96 and £44.50 in 1996–97. GEST and SPG(D) are not directly comparable because the responsibilities of LEA and GM schools differ.

  GEST funding per pupil

  Funding per pupil 1995–96

  Funding per pupil 1996–97

  LEA

  £

  £

  Corporation of London

  231.60

  258.49

  Camden

  59.09

  50.07

  Greenwich

  41.64

  42.36

  Hackney

  47.79

  54.14

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  44.54

  58.18

  Islington

  48.64

  57.93

  Kensington and Chelsea

  45.47

  63.37

  Lambeth

  52.18

  68.49

  Lewisham

  44.06

  52.66

  Southwark

  53.29

  50.78

  Tower Hamlets

  51.75

  56.50

  Wandsworth

  59.13

  66.44

  Westminster

  40.27

  47.48

  Barking

  39.19

  40.96

  Barnet

  41.99

  32.20

  Bexley

  33.06

  37.13

  Brent

  72.42

  73.16

  Bromley

  35.49

  37.35

  Croydon

  36.24

  37.06

  Ealing

  45.38

  36.33

  Enfield

  40.08

  42.02

  Haringey

  44.79

  47.97

  Harrow

  38.62

  33.74

  Havering

  35.01

  32.11

  Hillingdon

  43.14

  38.84

  Hounslow

  35.54

  36.21

  Kingston upon Thames

  34.80

  28.64

  Merton

  44.74

  46.13

  Newham

  46.39

  41.75

  Redbridge

  32.68

  30.83

  Richmond upon Thames

  33.84

  35.92

  Sutton

  51.53

  52.62

  Waltham Forest

  38.58

  47.84

  Birmingham

  35.91

  34.81

  Coventry

  42.23

  44.79

  Dudley

  40.45

  40.09

  Sandwell

  34.42

  43.23

  Solihull

  32.98

  31.42

  Walsall

  41.87

  42.88

  Wolverhampton

  43.50

  44.94

  Knowsley

  41.25

  46.49

  Liverpool

  39.39

  41.76

  St. Helens

  34.56

  35.20

  Sefton

  38.53

  28.67

  Wirral

  30.57

  35.56

  Bolton

  30.46

  35.66

  Bury

  33.18

  35.56

  Manchester

  40.38

  41.31

  Oldham

  37.78

  39.58

  Rochdale

  34.80

  37.54

  Salford

  31.96

  36.44

  Stockport

  39.42

  36.07

  Tameside

  34.89

  38.01

  Trafford

  33.89

  37.12

  Wigan

  33.74

  40.31

  Barnsley

  38.39

  43.37

  Doncaster

  39.60

  33.99

  Rotherham

  38.87

  37.70

  Sheffield

  36.36

  36.92

  Bradford

  42.83

  45.92

  896

  GEST funding per pupil

  Funding per pupil 1995–96

  Funding per pupil 1996–97

  Calderdale

  36.10

  44.62

  Kirlees

  40.82

  43.20

  Leeds

  37.89

  35.49

  Wakefield

  35.18

  35.94

  Gateshead

  40.52

  39.44

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  48.85

  48.84

  North Tyneside

  39.44

  43.91

  South Tyneside

  42.13

  38.37

  Sunderland

  23.98

  32.64

  Isle of Scilly

  273.50

  293.64

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  n/a

  30.99

  City of Bristol

  n/a

  37.74

  North-west Somerset

  n/a

  32.26

  South Gloucestershire

  n/a

  34.54

  Hartlepool

  n/a

  35.24

  Middlesbrough

  n/a

  32.57

  Redcar and Cleveland

  n/a

  34.51

  Stockton on Tees

  n/a

  31.26

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  n/a

  30.53

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  n/a

  38.07

  North east Lincolnshire

  n/a

  33.89

  North Lincolnshire

  n/a

  38.98

  North Yorkshire

  37.12

  40.71

  York

  n/a

  49.21

  Avon

  31.26

  n/a

  Bedfordshire

  32.36

  36.39

  Berkshire

  37.24

  36.55

  Buckinghamshire

  40.96

  38.90

  Cambridgeshire

  43.69

  39.87

  Cheshire

  36.25

  34.78

  Cleveland

  29.62

  n/a

  Cornwall

  38.96

  36.76

  Cumbria

  46.14

  44.35

  Derbyshire

  39.93

  41.30

  Devon

  34.57

  39.80

  Dorset

  35.06

  35.17

  Durham

  34.63

  38.28

  East Sussex

  36.53

  34.92

  Essex

  41.59

  43.22

  Glouchestershire

  45.73

  49.45

  Hampshire

  34.25

  35.15

  Hereford and Worcester

  36.19

  35.67

  Hertfordshire

  41.39

  41.66

  Humberside

  32.39

  n/a

  Isle of Wight

  58.56

  52.85

  Kent

  39.88

  42.10

  Lancashire

  36.98

  37.04

  Leicestershire

  29.57

  30.50

  Lincolnshire

  39.58

  42.80

  Norfolk

  39.63

  42.16

  Northamptonshire

  37.67

  38.50

  Northumberland

  37.15

  40.50

  Nottinghamshire

  33.63

  34.13

  Oxfordshire

  40.48

  40.81

  Shropshire

  39.61

  41.55

  Somerset

  37.26

  38.57

  Staffordshire

  32.07

  34.23

  Suffolk

  36.75

  38.06

  Surrey

  35.67

  35.51

  Warwickshire

  33.76

  34.96

  West Sussex

  35.22

  34.61

  Wiltshire

  41.46

  44.39

  England

  37.76

  39.02

  n/a=not applicable due to local government reorganisation.

  897

HEALTH

  Suicide Attempts
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicide attempts have been made at the Broadoak psychiatric unit, Broadgreen hospital during the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [40301]

  Mr. Burns
  The available information is as follows:

  September 1994 to August 1995: two unexpected deaths; one open verdict, one still awaited;

  September 1995 to August 1996: two unexpected deaths; inquest verdicts awaited.

  Figures relating to suicide attempts are not available centrally.

  Health Information Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls the health information service has received in each year since 1992; and how much funding it has received in each year. [40565]

  Mr. Horam
  The health information service was established in April 1992. Table A provides details of the number of calls received by the service since its establishment and table B provides information on the cost of providing the service for the financial years 1992–93 to 1996–97.

  Table A: Number of calls received by the health information service between April 1992 and September 1996

  Year

  Number of calls

  1992

  51,252

  1993

  136,293

  1994

  275,404

  1995

  457,187

  1996 (January-September)

  442,424

  Table B: Cost of providing the service between 1992–93 and 1996–97

  Financial year

  Cost £

  1992–93

  1,507,643

  1993–94

  1,881,998

  1994–95

  2,045,338

  1995–96

  2,337,766

  1996–971

  2,718,933

  1 Projected expenditure for 1996–97.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are followed in respect of monitoring the subjects of inquiry or complaint to the health information service. [40566]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities have responsibility for securing the provision of the freephone health information service in line with health service guidance HSG(95)44, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Arrangements for monitoring calls made to the health information service are for determination between individual health authorities and their health information service providers. However, any system of monitoring must respect the callers right to confidentiality.
  898

  New Hospitals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospitals have been built in 1996 and in each of the previous five years in(a) London and (b) each health region. [40569]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments have been closed in each health region in 1996 and in each of the previous five years. [40570]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the responsibility of each health authority to ensure the provision of adequate accident and emergency services for its resident population. Trusts with an accident and emergency department are listed in table 9 of "Bed availability for England". Booklets for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are available in the Library. The 1995–96 figures are expected to be available in November.

  Care should be taken in interpreting any reduction in the number of trusts with accident and emergency departments as closures. A trust may have more than one A and E department but will be listed once only. Mergers of trusts each with an A and E department would be listed once following a merger.

  Community Health Councils
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the procedure for the termination of appointments to membership of community health councils. [40526]

  Mr. Horam
  The conditions for termination of community health council membership are laid down in statute which came into force on 1 April 1996 There are no plans to review them.

  Mixed Wards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed wards were in existence in the most recent year for which figures are available. [40571]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Indebtedness
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) health authorities and (b) health trusts in respect of problems arising from indebtedness; and what extra assistance he is offering in this respect. [40561]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities have no power to borrow and thus the issue of their indebtedness does not arise. National health service trusts have powers to borrow to finance capital expenditure. Such borrowing is controlled by the external financing limit—EFL—which they are not permitted to exceed. Reporting of changes in trusts' balance sheet financing and indebtedness and
  899
  performance against the EFL form part of the year-end requirement to produce audited accounts, which are published.

  Hepatitis
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of NHS executive letter EL (96) 77 in the Library. [40675]

  Mr. Horam
  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Hospital Bed Closures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of(a) acute bed closures and (b) long-stay bed closures in London in each year since the publication of the Tomlinson report. [40567]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of beds opened or closed is not collected centrally.
  900
  Data on the average daily number of beds available in acute hospital wards in London, for the last three years for which information is available, are set out in the table. Similar information on long-stay beds is not collected centrally.

  Average daily number of available acute beds

  Inner London

  Outer London

  Total

  1992–93

  10,335

  8,881

  19,216

  1993–94

  9,708

  8,499

  18,207

  1994–95

  9,622

  7,977

  17,600

  Inner London includes former London postgraduates special health authorities. Totals may not add due to rounding.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have closed in 1996 and in each of the previous five years in(a) London and (b) each health region. [40568]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 7 June,Official Report, column 585.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Stansted: Hijacked Aircraft Procedures
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the security arrangements involved in the successful conclusion of the recent incident at Stansted Airport.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, yes. We were very pleased by the successful and peaceful conclusion of the hijacking incident at Stansted Airport on 27th August. All involved in the incident both here and overseas, particularly, the Essex police, played their part very well and the value of contingency planning was proved to be very worth while. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency. There are always new lessons to be learnt and the Government are examining closely the handling of this incident.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure that I speak for many when I congratulate all those concerned on the successful conclusion of the operation. However, do not the Government have one or two concerns about what happened on that day? Is the Minister aware that a radio reporter at the airport broadcast the exact disposition of the security forces around the aircraft—news which presumably could have been received on board the aircraft? Is she also aware of public reports that Stansted was the preferred airport of the authorities for dealing with hijacks, which has presumably made the airport unsuitable for that purpose in the future? Does the Minister recall press reports of the composition and activities of the committee set up by the Government, presumably in secret, to deal with such crises? Will the Government therefore consider a press blackout or at least an understanding that the press will do nothing to prejudice the activities of the security forces in any future crisis.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises some very important points. Certainly, the police did not believe their operation compromised by some of the publicity given to the incident. As the noble Lord knows, one of the difficulties was that at the time the aircraft left Cyprus, CNN, a broadcasting organisation over which we have no control, gave details about the fact that it was hijacked and heading for the United
1590
Kingdom. Furthermore, Stansted is fairly exposed which meant there could be a great deal of intelligent speculation by people simply looking across the airfield and noting movements to and from the aircraft. All points are considered. If a blackout is deemed necessary it can be implemented. It is possible to have a secure landline to an aircraft but in the case of a hijack it must be properly negotiated with the hijackers.

Sex Offenders: Early Release Arrangements
2.41 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the criteria for parole for paedophiles and other sex offenders.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, earlier this year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced proposals for changes in early release arrangements for all offenders, including the abolition of parole and the strengthening of the supervision of convicted sex offenders following release.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that affirmative Answer. Is she aware that some years ago I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who was then Prime Minister, making a similar suggestion and that I raised the matter in your Lordships' House and received little support? Is it not now time to press for change, bearing in mind the chilling increase in the number of young people in peril and defenceless women who are suffering attacks?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I am unaware of the letter that he wrote to my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I know that there is considerable concern about the matter and that changes have been made over the years. The proposed package of changes will be subject to parliamentary approval. They include extending and strengthening supervision arrangements; automatic life sentences for people who commit a second or further serious sexual or violent offence; a register of convicted sex offenders; a requirement on sex offenders to notify places of residence; a prohibition on sex offenders from working in any employment with access to children; DNA sampling extended to those convicted of a sex offence and to people currently serving a prison sentence for a sex offence, which is also subject to parliamentary approval; and the supervision of access to victims' statements and photographs in sexual offence cases. We will announce our conclusion on some of those proposals for legislation as soon as possible.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister accept that there will be support from these Benches and probably on all sides of the House for many of the measures which are to be announced

1591
subject, of course, to their wording? However, I cannot say the same in relation to automatic life sentences for sex offenders.
Will the Minister acknowledge also that the phrase "sex offender" goes rather wider of the issue than is desirable? After all, some sexual offences relate to consensual acts in which there are no victims and for which the kind of register and increased parole and notification arrangements would not be appropriate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's support. It would be a happy coincidence if all parties could come together in relation to these measures. I am sorry that the noble Lord feels unable to support automatic life sentences for serious sex offenders because the whole point of automatic life sentences is not to make them serve a great deal longer in prison. It makes two provisions which are very important: first, there is a full risk assessment before any offender is allowed to be released into the community; and secondly, if an offender displays a pattern of behaviour which gives cause for concern, he can be returned to prison. But the judges will determine the tariff for such sentences and there will be proper risk assessment.
The noble Lord made another important point which we shall discuss in more detail when it comes before the House. Arrangements will be made so that if there are exceptional mitigating circumstances, the automatic life sentence may be set aside by the judge.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the Government recognise that in those matters, the overriding priority is the protection of the public rather than the freedom of the offender?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, absolutely. The whole point of this is that we believe that the public deserves to be protected and we are doing all that we can to increase that protection.
Perhaps I may return to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is looking very unhappy. I referred to automatic life sentences and I believe that the noble Lord may have been referring to other offences which concern consensual behaviour. Offenders who have committed sexual offences will be subject to extended supervision which, again, will be determined by a judge.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is still the Government's policy that offenders, both adult and juveniles, are still human beings. The policy of any government should be aimed at rehabilitation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say with some deference to the noble Earl that the people who are on the receiving end of those awful crimes are also human beings and it is their protection with which we are concerned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will forgive me for returning to this matter
1592
because I do not believe that she understood my question. I was referring to those sexual offences which have no victims but which represent illegal consensual acts between adults. Although of course the protection of the public and victims must be paramount in relation to the sexual offences to which the Minister referred, there are sexual offences which do not fall into that category and for which the register and extra parole would not be appropriate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if this measure is passed by Parliament, that would be a matter for the courts. However, perhaps I may give one example. If there was consensual sex between two male people, one of whom was a 13 year-old boy and one an adult male, that would be a sexual offence. I believe that extended supervision would be appropriate in those circumstances.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the case of the offender who has absconded while on some kind of remedial exercise, and who was responsible for the death of two innocent infants, require individual examination to ascertain what has gone wrong?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, any escape into the community which causes anxiety is a reason for us to look at why and how it happened and to do all that we can to ensure that it does not happen again.

Scottish Prisons: Multiple or Consecutive Sentences
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any ambiguity in Scotland during 1996 concerning the lengths of imprisonment to be served by convicted offenders in cases of multiple or consecutive sentences.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, no, there has been no such ambiguity in Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me that reassurance. Is my noble and learned friend aware that many people in Scotland thought that the premature release of prisoners, which was widely reported in the press in August, was happening there, although the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for Scottish prisons and there is a separate Scottish Prison Service? As that is one of several examples, should not the main political parties be concentrating on enlightening the media and the public as regards the present amount of devolution in place rather than trying to invent new and expensive layers of politicians with systems which are unlikely to be workable?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, while I am sympathetic to much of what my noble friend said, perhaps I may concentrate on the Scottish Prison

1593
Service, which for those of your Lordships who are in any doubt is what this Question is about. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships to learn that because Scotland has a separate legal system it also has a separate prison service. On the rare occasions when prisons get into the news, as happened recently when a prisoner in Peterhead escaped when he was being escorted to hospital, it was the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service who faced the cameras and explained what had happened to the people of the locality, who were understandably concerned. It was a matter for which he and his staff took responsibility and would investigate.
As regards the concerns which were expressed in England, I was unaware that the matter had caused any apprehension in Scotland. However, I certainly undertake to draw the point raised by my noble friend to the attention of the chief executive. If any further problem should arise in England, it is to be hoped that it will not cause any apprehension in Scotland.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his thorough explanation. The impression that I have gained is exactly the one that he expressed. I am sure that we all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, went slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper with his supplementary question. However, many of the legal people in Scotland with whom I have discussed the matter have agreed that there is not the same opportunity for ambiguity in the Scottish law as appears to be the case down south. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clearing up this little puzzle.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. The explanation may be that the law in Scotland on the matter is clearer than that south of the Border. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary proposes to bring the law of England in line with that of Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the further points that he makes. However, because I have been fortunate enough to spend almost all of the past three months at home in northern Scotland, I was very much aware of public concern that prisoners were being released both north and south of the Border without receiving the customary preparation and probation work beforehand. Is it true that, as reported, about one-third of the prisoners who were released early south of the Border reoffended within three months?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have with me some information in that respect which was up to date until a few days ago. Noble Lords will appreciate that the statistics that need to be prepared take a few days to come to hand. However, my information is that the level of reoffending was not as high as the figure suggested by my noble friend. About 541 prisoners were released early. As of a few days ago, some 200 of that number would have been released in any event. Therefore, we are dealing with a period of only three
1594
months. Of those 541 prisoners, six are back in prison or in some other form of custody either for further offences or because they have been recalled for breach of licence. A very small number have reoffended and been taken back into custody. There may be others who have reoffended on a more minor level which has not justified their recall to custody or the refusal of bail. As I said, although my information is a few days out of date, my understanding is that the figure is way below the one-third mentioned by my noble friend.

Whitehall Buildings
2.53 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which other buildings in Whitehall, apart from the Treasury, they consider most suitable for partial conversion into residential and hotel accommodation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Executive Agency, Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE), which co-ordinates departments' plans, informs me that it is not aware of any proposals for the partial conversion of Whitehall buildings into residential or hotel accommodation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on a report in last Friday's Financial Times which stated that if the projects in the pipeline are successful the whole government office estate could be transferred to the private sector? Does the noble Baroness consider it wise that property which has been in government hands for 200 years and situated on land which the Crown has owned for 800 years should now be sold off? When one thinks about the Foreign Office, Downing Street, the Cabinet Office, Horseguards—and, indeed, Admiralty Arch, about which there has already been speculation—one wonders whether it is right for the Government to be selling off such fundamental Crown properties.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that was a rather long question. I should advise the noble Lord not to believe everything he reads in press reports; I am sure he does not. The private finance initiative, which is what much of the question refers to, is really about securing value for money. Moreover, we believe that most departments have no in-house expertise when it comes to property ownership. Instead of owning a depreciating asset, being exposed to cost over-runs and then managing the asset itself, we are contracting out to buy a quantity of services accommodation at set standards from the private sector. Payment will be dependent upon the delivery of those services. Risks are shared, thus reducing government exposure and introducing the prospect of reward to contractors who manage services well. As a matter of fact, we believe that the PH is a very good initiative and one which will provide very good value for money for the taxpayer.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I should perhaps point out to the Minister that she has just given a rather long

1595
answer. Further, if I may say so with the greatest of respect, it was a somewhat incomprehensible answer. What exactly do the Government have in mind in relation to Whitehall and the Crown estate? Is it a sale with a lease back to the Government? I am not quite sure what the Minister said in that respect. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that at least Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street will remain in the public sector? While there will be a change of occupancy after the next election, we would not wish to see a change of functions.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord stole my joke about long questions and answers. Perhaps I may make the position quite clear.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am so sorry that noble Lords opposite did not understand what I said the first time round. I thought that I had made the position quite clear. However, I am prepared to repeat myself. It is for departments to dispose of any office space they no longer require. That is really what we are talking about. Any consequent redevelopment or change of use is subject to the normal planning procedures operated by the local authority, which in the case of Whitehall—to which the noble Lord referred—is Westminster City Council. I can assure the House that this Government have no intention whatever of selling off No. 10 or No. 11 Downing Street; nor indeed the Palace of Westminster. We will most certainly be here after March, April or May of next year, or whenever. If noble Lords opposite have different views and believe that they will do differently, they may decide to make this beautiful palace redundant, but we will not allow that to happen.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to press the point. Can the Minister say whether there is any specific office accommodation in and around Whitehall which the Government at present feel they do not require and in respect of which they are about to go through the quite astonishingly contorted actions just mentioned?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I cannot add much to what I have already said. As I said in my original Answer, there are no such plans. Indeed, I shall repeat it. The Property Advisers to the Civil Estate inform me that they are not aware of any proposals for the partial conversion of Whitehall buildings into residential or hotel accommodation. That seems to me to be perfectly clear. I am surprised that the noble Lord opposite, with all his high intelligence, does not understand plain English.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that every answer she has given today increases the disquiet of the House? Is it not absurd to be thinking of handing over any area of one of the most famous administrative centres in the entire world to the private sector?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am very surprised and indeed sorry that the noble Lord feels any
1596
disquiet regarding what I said. It is certainly not my intention to make anyone unhappy; indeed, I always try to make people happy if I can. As I tried to say, it is for individual departments to consider the future of their Whitehall buildings. There are advantages in the PH but any proposals will be subject to normal planning procedures and planning policy as well as all the necessary guidance on historic buildings and other matters. I can certainly say that this Government very much protect the heritage of all of our buildings.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, am I right in thinking that some time ago Members of both Houses of Parliament were desperately short of offices and other accommodation? If that is the case, why is part of Whitehall being converted for a use other than that of parliamentary business? At the eastern end of the Palace of Westminster there seem to be major developments. Indeed it appears that New Scotland Yard is being used for government purposes.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give a particularly satisfactory answer to my noble friend. I do not have any information about that, but I shall most certainly find out.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it is slightly worrying that in all her replies the noble Baroness has not given any reassurance as regards the future of Dover House in Whitehall. That is important to many people in the Scottish Office.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I know of no plans. I have said that we have heard of no plans. I have not been informed of anything in that regard. As far as I am concerned, there are no plans in that regard.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am a little lost. Am I right in saying—as I understand the Question—that the Government do not consider the Treasury "suitable for partial conversion"? Am I right in saying that they do not consider anything else suitable for partial conversion? Is that the answer to the Question?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I should make clear something that perhaps I have not made clear—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sorry if noble Lords think I may have misled them in some way. The position as regards the Treasury building is different from that of other buildings to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred. I shall read my brief exactly to make the position clear to noble Lords. On 13th September the Treasury announced that it had decided to appoint Exchequer Partnership plc to redevelop its headquarters in Whitehall. This imaginative bid breaks new ground—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Noble Lords may well laugh, but it most definitely is an imaginative bid. It

1597
will break new ground as regards the private finance initiative. It offers good value for money for the taxpayer which we on this side of the House are particularly keen to achieve, and it provides modern, efficient office accommodation for the Treasury which is very necessary. Negotiations with Exchequer Partnership plc are continuing. Obviously at this stage, for commercial reasons, it would be premature to reveal further details. However, the Treasury expects to sign heads of terms shortly and further information will be provided then. I am sorry that I did not make clear that that position was different from the general position I discussed subsequently.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the noble Baroness said there were no plans as regards Dover House. Does that mean that if the Scottish Office wants to get rid of the building, it can put it up for sale, or let it, for some imaginative proposal and the Government would have no objection in principle?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, since 1st April it has been for individual—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I accept that noble Lords opposite find that date humorous. I agree that it is an unfortunate date to have to announce. However, since 1st April it has been for individual departments to consider the future of their Whitehall buildings. I can inform the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that it is a matter for each individual department. Any proposals would be subject to normal planning procedures and planning policy—I can do no better than repeat what I have said—and would take into account guidance as regards historic buildings and other matters.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one possible use for those parts of the Treasury buildings which the Treasury will no longer need is as residential and hotel accommodation? Will the Minister also confirm—as she said in a previous answer—that under the private finance initiative the Government consider property to be a depreciating asset whereas most of us were brought up to understand that property was an appreciating asset which one sells only when one is in financial distress?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm what the noble Lord has just asked. However, I can inform the House that an announcement will be made shortly by Sir Terry Burns who is the highly respected chairman of the Treasury Management Board. Negotiations over the heads of terms regarding the Treasury building with the proposed private sector partner are currently in progress. For obvious commercial reasons it would not be in the Government's interest to make any further comment or announcement at this time.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I do not wish to add to the misery of the noble Baroness but
1598
is it not time for the Government as landlord and active owner of all these places to call a halt to these rumours? A few months ago we were told that Admiralty Arch was to be sold off. Shall we be told next week that the Palais de Danse will buy the Banqueting Hall? I say with great respect that it is rather frightening that all these lovely buildings which have been designed for a purpose are being treated in this way.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have spoken at length about the Treasury building but other than that building there are no further plans in this regard.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her paean of praise for the PFI rings strangely untrue to people working in the National Health Service? On the issue of value for money, would it not be sensible to have an investigation and study undertaken by the Audit Commission on the value for money of the PFI in the NHS before the Government embark on any imaginative PR schemes elsewhere?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will agree with me that that matter is wide of the Question.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too wish to be clear about this. Are we really saying that private finance initiatives, or any other such initiative, may be taken by individual government departments and not referred in any way to Parliament? This is a national issue. We are talking about buildings that belong to the nation. I am sorry but I find it extremely difficult to understand how one can justify the fate of a building resting in the hands of a particular department at a particular moment in time.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as I said, there are no plans in this regard in relation to other buildings. I have nothing further to add.

Business of the House
3.7 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 16th October to enable the Public Order (Amendment) Bill to be taken before the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Avebury, and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be likewise dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken that day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EU Enlargement and CAP Reform: ECC Report
3.8 p.m.
Lord Middleton Lord Middleton rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Enlargement and Common Agricultural Policy Reform (12th Report, HL Paper 92).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in the common agricultural policy in that I am a director of farming companies in receipt of various payments under CAP schemes. Further, I should explain that the word "enlargement" in this report refers to the enlargement of the European Union to include 10 countries which have applied to join. Those countries are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and the three Baltic states: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Last December in his Statement to Parliament on the Madrid European Council my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
"I now refer to enlargement. Ahead even of prosperity, the European Union exists to provide security and stability for the peoples of Europe. For that reason, I believe that enlargement is the most important task facing the European Union. Having demolished the iron curtain, we must never again have a dividing line running through the middle of Europe… The Madrid Council considered reports from the Commission on the implications of enlargement for the European Union's policies, and those are profound. To be affordable and to be consistent with the EU's obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, the common agricultural policy will have to be reformed when the Union enlarges".— [Official Report, Commons, 18/12/95; col. 1220.]
That Statement fully endorsed Sub-Committee D's 1994 report to this House on the association agreements between the EU and the central and eastern European countries. Early on in that inquiry we recognised that East-West trade was only a small part, although an important one, of the problems that had to be tackled before any possible accession by those countries. In that report we said that enlargement could not take place without substantial reform of the CAP.
At the 1994 Essen European Council it was recognised that something had to be done about an unreformed CAP which stood as an obstacle in the way of enlargement. The Commission was instructed to suggest a way forward. In consequence a strategy document was produced last autumn over the signature of the Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. Fischler. It is the report to last December's Madrid Council to which the Prime Minister referred in his Statement. It is on that paper that Sub-Committee D has based this year's inquiry; and it is the document referred to under the heading on page 7 of our report.
In asking the House to take note of the report, I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues on Sub-Committee D and to the many individuals and organisations who provided evidence, both oral and written. I should like to pay tribute, too, to our specialist adviser, Professor John Marsh of Reading University whose advice has been invaluable, and to the excellent work of our clerk, Miss Mouland. Our thanks are due, too, to our embassies in Lithuania and Poland which looked after us so well during our visits this summer.
I have much pleasure in being able to present this report to your Lordships before leaving Sub-Committee D because it is built on and rounds off three major reports on this theme made while I was chairman of Sub-Committee D. In our 1991 common agricultural policy report we criticised the Commission's plan for CAP reform, which was then known as the MacSharry proposal, and gave our opinion as to how such reform ought to be carried out. The reforms made in 1992 came some way towards that prescription, but not far enough. I have mentioned our 1994 report on the trade agreements with the CEEC and our conviction that no enlargement was possible without CAP reform. The present report contains echoes of our 1990 report on The Future of Rural Society.
I turn now to the Commission's strategy document, the subject of our inquiry. It is a very interesting paper because, as we say in our introduction on page 7, the Commission recognises for the first time in print that the 1992 CAP reforms did not go far enough. (Perhaps I may refer to the common agricultural policy as the CAP for brevity's sake.) The paper describes accurately the agricultural economies of the applicant countries and makes various proposals as to how those could be accommodated on enlargement of the EU.
On the question of CAP reform, the paper offers three options. The first is to maintain the status quo which, for reasons upon which I shall enlarge, it rightly rejects out of hand. The second option offers a policy for reform which coincides precisely with the prescription which our committee gave in our 1991 CAP reform report four years earlier. Our recommendations for CAP reform were, and still are, that there should be reductions in the levels of agricultural price support progressively to a set time scale towards world market prices and consequent reduction of export refund payments and import controls. We said that there had to be phasing out of the quotas. We recommended the unfastening of agricultural policy mechanisms from those relating to regional, social or environmental policies. We say that any compensation payments to farmers should be transitional and decoupled from production decisions. Those are repeated virtually word for word in the Commission's strategy paper, option 2.
However, the paper shrinks away from this option as being too radical. Nevertheless it offers a third option which would in effect reach the same target but much more slowly and through a process of evolution. During such a process it would retain some of the undesirable features of the current CAP. In addition, it makes some useful if vague proposals for what it calls an integrated rural policy.
Our report examines the paper in detail with particular attention to the pressures other than enlargement which give urgency to CAP reform. We make our own recommendations on how to do so building on those of the Commission. We were pleased throughout our inquiry to note how well our 1991 prescription for reform has stood the test of time. In its paper, the Commission comes some way along our recommended road. As we took evidence we noted how close to our ideas were the ideas of other witnesses, notably MAW, our own National Farmers' Union and all the agriculture

1601
economists in this country and in the EU who gave evidence. Most member states and organisations within them will need persuading, although there are signs of enlightenment among some influential bodies both in Germany and in France.
We follow up our 1994 report by looking again at the East-West trade arrangements, which remain highly unsatisfactory and present another obstacle to the accession process. We attempt to put flesh on to the skeletal proposals for environmental and social measures which the Commission recognises must go along with a more rigorous European agricultural economic climate. We finish with the hope that, having dared to put a toe into the water of reform, the EU will take the plunge while the opportunity is there. The stability and prosperity of Europe depend upon it.
That is an outline of the report. Looking at its contents in a little more detail, Part 1 introduces the report and provides its background. Part 2 describes the Commission's agricultural strategy paper including the three options to which I have referred. Part 3 summarises the evidence. It is a long section which reflects the weight of evidence taken, and the desire of so many individuals and organisations to express their views. Part 4 presents the opinion of the committee which is summarised in Part 5.
In our opinion section we welcome the recognition by the Commission that the present CAP cannot be expected to accommodate the 10 applicant countries. We agree with the Commission that, with the expected increase in production in the CEECs added to that of the EU and the surpluses that would be engendered, an unchanged CAP would face increased budgetary costs and that this cannot be contemplated.
We agree with the Commission about the other pressures on CAP such as, first, the future round of WTO talks scheduled for 1999 which will be designed to take further the reductions in agricultural production and support begun in the Uruguay round. Secondly, there is the prospect of enlargement, which will create further problems in complying with GAIT commitments, especially commitments on subsidised exports. Accession of CEE countries at high support levels will result in surpluses in an enlarged EU far in excess of those allowed to be exported with subsidy. Thirdly, as I have said, inclusion of the CEE countries would increase budget expenditure on an unreformed CAP. The Commission's strategy paper gives an estimate of 12 billion ecu per year. MAFF in evidence calculated an additional 15 billion ecu annually for Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak republics alone on a 1996 draft agricultural budget of 41 billion ecu. Fourthly, the world demand situation provides an opportunity to be exploited (as is implicit in United States farm policy and its Farm Bill, now called the FAIR Act). A CAP which relies on supply management in isolation from the world market is ignoring this trend. Fifthly, the EU budget deal expires in 1999. Lastly, the CAP is urgently in need of reform anyway in its own right.
In our opinion section also we regret what seems to be a lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Commission and the Council to recognise the urgency of the need for
1602
reform. Applicant countries must know in advance how to plan their agricultural policies with confidence that the CAP is not a moving target.
We deplore the continuing restrictions on imports of agricultural produce to the EU from the CEECs under the Europe agreements.
In regard to the mechanisms of reform, I have indicated that we would have preferred option 2. Alas, this option would have little chance of getting through the European Council and undoubtedly that is why the paper shies away from it with a rather lame excuse about environmental and social risks. These risks we seek to minimise later in the opinion section.
Our committee recognised the political realities and refrained from baldly recommending the radical option and condemning out of hand the milder option 3. We did not want the report to be at once discarded in Brussels as insensitive, especially at the present time. We wanted our report to receive attention in Brussels as a constructive response to the strategy paper.
MAFF in evidence argued that the contrast between evolutionary and radical reforms was largely a false antithesis and that, logically pursued, the evolutionary and radical reform would in practice lead in the radical direction.
So we go along with the evolutionary approach in option 3 in so far as it advocates reduction in price support to world market levels. That would indeed be a giant stride along what we consider to be the right road to CAP reform. We say, however, that the CAP must start to get rid of supply management mechanisms. It should retain intervention only as a safety net and any compensatory payments should be short-term adjustment aids only.
Coupled with such reductions we agree with the Commission that there should be carefully planned policies to offer alternative sources of employment and other social objectives in rural areas. We say that these and environmental policies must be totally separated from agricultural policies. If you try to make one set of policies do the work of another set, you end up with confusion. We reject once again the concept of cross-compliance.
I read with interest a DGII publication which has just recently emerged from Brussels on the subject of compensation payments to fanners. DGII is the department which deals with economics and finance. The paper concludes that such benefits could be obtained more efficiently with "targeted instruments". "Structural measures", it says, "seem more appropriate". This is wholly in line with our opinion on the subject given in our report. So I hope that there will be close liaison between DGII and DGVI as the Commission deliberates on enlargement.
The Commission says at the end of its strategy paper that it is,
"confident that the ideas presented [therein] will be fully and widely discussed within the Union and the CEECs".
We hope that this report will help to stimulate the discussion and lead to the formulation of legislative proposals which will promote speedy reform of the CAP.
I was heartened three weeks ago listening to Mr. Fischler's Chef de Cabinet at a conference in which I had been asked to take part. He referred to the Commission's view that the 1992 CAP reforms were only the start of the process. He recognised the pressures for reform which I have described; he recognised the trend towards free agricultural trade, with less supply management and less price support. He agreed that there was a need for a safety net compensation for those European farmers who will be hit by CAP reform and the need for substantial support for rural economies. That is fine, but he gave no indication of any sense of urgency.
Our report expresses concern and, indeed, dismay that the Commission and Council have not produced any timetable for reform. We therefore end by saying that they must get a move on:
"The Commission and the Agriculture Council must act with the utmost urgency to begin the process of reform".
If it is envisaged that accession by the CEECs should begin in the year 2000, discussions on detailed CAP reform are needed now.
When this House debated our 1994 report on trade with the CEECs and enlargement, I quoted our then ambassador when he spoke to me on a visit by members of our sub-committee to Budapest. I believe that Sir John Birch's words will bear repeating. They are even more relevant two years later. He said:
"If 10 years ago we thought we could obtain a situation in Eastern Europe where the Russian army had withdrawn into Russia and where the CEE countries were moving into parliamentary systems of government, we should have paid billions of pounds to achieve it. Now we have got that situation for virtually nothing. For heaven's sake do not let us lose it".
I commend the Report to the House.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Enlargement and Common Agricultural Policy Reform (12th Report, HL Paper 92).—(Lord Middleton.)
3.29 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I follow my noble friend Lord Middleton on the speakers' list I should like to begin by paying a tribute to his tenure of the post of chairman of Sub-Committee D, which he relinquishes at the end of this Session. In fact the beginnings of his double tenure of the chairmanship reach back far further than my membership of the committee. However, I served long enough under his chairmanship, including visits to three central European countries, to learn to enjoy the experience immensely and to profit hugely along with my colleagues on the committee from the unique combination of qualities that he brought to the job.
My noble friend managed on the one hand to be unfailingly pleasant, enthusiastic and courteous; on the other hand, a steely ruthlessness ensured that he never lost his grip on the timetable, whether of a single morning's evidence session or of the report as a whole. And he never lost sight of the political objective. Needless to say, under his chairmanship one also wholly forgot party differences.
1604
My noble friend's overriding political objective was, above all, to maintain the independence and integrity of the committee. As he himself is wont proudly to point out, it is extremely unusual, if not unique, in Europe to find a parliamentary agricultural committee that calls for less public assistance to be given to farmers. My noble friend's wisdom, shrewdness and political sagacity are widely appreciated in this House and he will be sorely missed on Sub-Committee D.
I declare an interest as a landowner and director of an agricultural land-owning company.
In paragraph 1 of our report we acknowledge that the European Commission in its agricultural strategy paper has shown a change of heart towards CAP reform. For the first time it has shown recognition that the maintenance of the CAP in its present form, in the face of the challenges that lie ahead of it, is not a feasible option. We welcome that. The problem lies in the fact that it has not seen how to move from that general appreciation to a set of concrete proposals embodied in a strict timetable. When it was presented with an opportunity to take the all-important first step, as with the 1996 agricultural price review, it did not seize it. That inaction on the part of the Commission seems on the face of it curious as well as deplorable. With world prices recently standing well above CAP support prices for many products, notably food grains, now would have been a particularly good time to act. Support prices can more easily be reduced when they have less immediate relevance to farmers.
Yet the Commission has not acted. Why not? Could it be that the same world market conditions that provide an opportunity to start the process of reform have also removed the essential incentive to do so by relieving pressure on the Community budget? That would be an ironic conclusion to draw but, if true, provides perhaps just the latest illustration of how unforeseeable are the consequences of bureaucratic price fixing and detailed bureaucratic determination of agricultural policy generally. So the future world food supply situation has a bearing on the prospects for CAP reform.
The predictions are not unanimous. On the one hand there are those like Lester Brown of the United States who argues that rising demand for food in China, for example, will be responsible for much higher world food prices for years to come. On the other hand there are those like the experienced Mr. David Hadley of MAFF who, having heard all these predictions before and finding that they never amounted to very much for very long, observe that the underlying yield trend is still upwards without advances in biotechnology having yet had much of a chance to make a contribution and who therefore see little reason to expect world prices to remain above European Union prices beyond, say, 1997. If Mr. Hadley's view is closer to being the right one, there may never be a more propitious time to start introducing CAP reforms, or a time at which it can be done less painfully, than now.
Where is the impetus to come from? The Government, in their reply to the report, seem wholeheartedly to embrace virtually every one of the committee's conclusions. Their reply states unequivocally,

1605
"The Government agrees that, following a period of adjustment, EU farmers should be expected to obtain the return for their production solely from the market and this should be on the basis of world prices … there should be no need for supply management mechanisms and that intervention, if it remained, should revert to a purely 'safety net' role to deal with genuine market emergencies".
That view is also endorsed by, among others, consumer groups, manufacturers who are made uncompetitive by the high prices they have to pay for raw materials brought within the European Union, and those like horticulturalists, leading unprotected lives outside the CAP, who compete with subsidised producers of the same resources, for example land.
Is the desire to see a market-driven CAP unique to this country? Not, it appears, entirely. Perhaps our most glittering witness was the famous German agricultural economist, Professor Stefan Tangermann of Gottingen University. He arrived alone and kept the committee enthralled with one-and-a-half hours of lucid evidence delivered in English. He was plainly of the same fundamental view as ourselves. He described himself as an internationally minded economist who wished to see as many countries as possible living with world prices. He was in two minds as to whether he wanted to see any mechanism at all in operation to protect farmers from movements in world prices. He saw the political case for a safety net—he suggested that intervention prices might be set at a level of 75 per cent. of the moving average of world prices over the preceding five years—and proposed that farmers receive payments to enable them to adjust to lower world prices over a 15-year period.
Professor Tangermann pointed out that there were sectors within European agriculture which led the world in efficiency—he singled out pork and poultry producers—and which would be quite able to compete globally once they could be sure of not having to pay more than world market prices for their foodstuffs. In his view, even much Community cereal production, particularly of wheat, was competitive at world prices under normal market conditions. He said that in Germany, outside official circles, a debate was beginning and that there existed thinking reflecting the attitude found in farming circles in the United States that it was time government got out of the farmers' way.
Interestingly, he attributed the change in Commissioner Fischler's thinking (which has led the commissioner to acknowledge that further reform of the CAP is necessary) to French influence, reflecting the views of "élite" French farmers who feel confident they can produce for the world market if given a chance.
Sir David Naish, president of the NFU, confirmed that within COPA, the European umbrella organisation for farmers' unions, it was now permitted to talk about reform of the CAP whereas three years ago the idea would have been unmentionable. But outside officials circles, where it counts, in France or Germany, those views are not, or are not yet, allowed to be heard.
When questioned about German attitudes to the CAP, Mr. Stephen Wright, Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had this to say:
"The Germans are clearly very sensitive about the idea of reforming the CAP. It is not a subject that they discuss easily".
1606
Those words spoke volumes. It is political leadership that is lacking. It is not as though there had been any retreat, any resiling from the objective of European Union enlargement.
President Chirac, speaking last month in front of the Polish Parliament no less, pledged the support of France for the entry of what he termed "our sister country in the East" into the European Union by the year 2000. Yet plainly it would be preposterous to admit the CEE countries into a pre-reformed CAP.
The extension of milk quotas or set-aside, or of the highly artificial, costly and obscurantist restrictions of the sugar regime, to the countries of central and eastern Europe is a prospect too horrifying to contemplate. Yet what alternative to measures of supply control would there be were the high prices of the CAP to stimulate production way beyond the capacity of the domestic market to absorb and with GATT forbidding further access of subsidised export to the world market? It is not as if delay served any good purpose. Far from it. As my noble friend pointed out, acceding countries should know as soon as possible the type of CAP they are to be required to adopt. For one thing, the longer the CAP provides an example of protectionism in action the greater the danger of those countries proceeding to emulate it in miniature in their own economies. Indeed, we saw that process at work on our visit to Lithuania.
There is also the consideration emphasised to us by our MAFF witness, Mr. David Hadley. With reform now inevitable within a short and ever reducing time span and recognised at last by the Commission to be inevitable, the European Community is throwing away valuable time that could and should be spent paving the way for reform by explaining the necessity for it to Europe's fanners.
The European Union's enlargement to include the CEE countries and the present unreformed CAP reflect all the incompatibility of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Both remain on course for their dramatic, almost ordained, collision. All of us on the committee had no doubt: it is the object that must move. However, as the report makes clear and as my noble friend emphasised, European Union enlargement does not provide the only pressure for CAP reform. It is considered quite likely that the CAP may eventually produce surpluses that even present CAP restrictions may make it impossible to export. Beyond that, before the end of the decade, we have a new World Trade Organisation round which is certain to produce international pressure for further removal of CAP subsidies, particularly now that the United States in its latest farm Bill has embraced a further impressive dose of liberalisation for its farm sector.
There is a final reason why the CAP should be reformed—because it is a wasteful, expensive and inefficient policy that looks more and more anachronistic the more other parts of all economies are liberalised, privatised and freed from states' dependency. All political parties in this country seem now agreed that this is the age for smaller government. The time is fast approaching when governments need to start at least a partial withdrawal from agriculture too.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I must first apologise to the House. I shall have to leave this debate at a quarter to five because I am chairing an all-party group at that time. I have explained that to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I hope very much to be back at any rate in time for the winding up of the debate and I shall read everything that I have missed.
First, I should like to echo everything that the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said about our chairman. He has very great knowledge and expertise which was invaluable to the committee. He has given us a very clear message. Reform is essential, and action should be taken now. The political reasons for turning down the more radical option, option 2, are understandable. But that does not mean that there should be silence now on immediate moves to get on with the evolution from the 1992 reforms. The disappointment at the recent reaction to the Commission's proposals to increase the tariff quotas which govern imports of agricultural produce from the CEECs is mentioned in our report. The Commission proposed an increase of 10 per cent. a year for five years, but in Council the opposition to that modest increase was such that it was reduced to 5 per cent. As we said, that does not bode well for future moves towards accession. It is agreed that politically accession of the CEECs is most desirable. They must be feeling frustrated and naturally complain of the moving target that the CAP seems to be.
In my speech I shall concentrate on Lithuania. I was lucky enough to be one of the delegation which went there. It is a country which I had not visited before and I found it a fascinating experience. Vilnius is an ancient city. The old parts are both interesting and attractive. There are many beautiful churches which are gradually being restored to their original use. One had been changed into a museum of atheism.
Our first day was spent in meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture with the Minister and two State Secretaries. The State Secretaries were civil servants. The Minister told us that they were working with the Czech Republic and Poland in preparation for membership of the WTO. He complained that agriculture in Lithuania was "oppressed" by restrictions of agricultural imports to the EU. That is a complaint that is made constantly and, it seems to me, with justification.
The collective farms were being privatised, and a process of restitution of land to former owners was under way. They suffered from shortages of finance and machinery, which the state could do little to remedy. They needed investment and aid from agricultural consultancies. They still saw their major markets as being in the East. Technological aid was coming from the West, but there was a need for bigger quota allocations from the EU so that their farmers could become accustomed to the standards required by this market. They said that an expansion of quotas would be seen as a gesture of goodwill to Lithuania for its important part in the fall of the former Soviet Union. The Minister asked for a period of time to prepare its agriculture for competition with the EU.
1608
State Secretary Stalianus described the forms of land restitution. To carry out the reform, 426 land reform units each employed five or six specialists and, at that time, 41 per cent. of the total land area had been measured and prepared for return. A 1994 law had established the legal basis for a market in land, but it was not developing as well as expected because few people wanted to buy. Foreign investors were permitted to lease land for up to 99 years. State Secretary Purvinskis explained that before land privatisation those working on the land had been specialists in certain aspects of the agricultural process. They found it now more difficult to adapt to management of the whole farm structure. The processing industry was suffering from under-investment and needed help. The PHARE programme was important in reinstating the vitality of that sector.
The impression at the end of that morning was of certain frustrations. They felt that the EU could be more understanding and that aid, in both advice and investment, was urgently needed.
Our meeting in the afternoon with the parliamentary agricultural committee I found a little depressing. The members were sceptical about accession to the EU and that scepticism was fuelled by the high subsidy levels for agriculture within the EU and with the tariff barriers which hindered imports from Lithuania. The EU, they thought, was more concerned to deal with its own surpluses than to welcome foreign trade. Therefore, they continued to look to the East to develop their markets. The chairman contrasted the attitude of the "philosophers" in Brussels, who promoted their case for accession, with the more realistic attitude of the farmers. They sought economic adjustment rather than the equalisation of legislation, and concluded that it would be a very long process.
Our next day was highly enjoyable. We got out into the country and met with representatives of local government of the Panevezys County. We discussed their area and their responsibilities. They told us that they exported dairy products, butter, cheese and milk powder to the West, but, again, found access to the European market very difficult. They stressed the importance of co-operation between producers and processors. But it appeared that the memory of the former co-operative structure acted as a disincentive to establishing that relationship.
We moved on to a dairy processing plant and it was fascinating. We were given a great welcome. The machinery was both old Soviet-supplied apparatus, and new machines. They were investing in new machinery as profits made it possible. They were keen to become modern and efficient. This project had in fact been set up jointly with the PHARE programme and ADAS to promote marketing techniques for agriculture. They were proud of their products and were extremely generous in pressing them on us: ice cream, ice lollies and sour cream were being prepared and packaged; curd rolls coated in chocolate; and cakes elaborately decorated. I thought that a liquid form of yoghurt was particularly good. When we left the dairy, I asked Professor Marsh whether he thought that it would

1609
conform to EEC regulations and he said that it definitely would not. But I felt that they were making strenuous efforts.
We moved on to the Raguvele Agriculture Enterprise where Mr. and Mrs. Rimseviciai gave us a tour of their farmlands. They were working to reclaim land owned by her grandparents. It was a large property. They were being extremely enterprising. They had installed machinery to make bread and pasta from their stored grain. They made pasta for diabetics. There was a large orchard and good storage facilities. They had established a restaurant in a former manor house, where we had an excellent lunch. The sanitary arrangements would certainly not have come anywhere near western standards. We were impressed by their enterprise and energy; they had certainly "added value" to the raw materials their estate produced and I wish them well.
On our last morning we visited an open market and then a supermarket that had recently opened. We were surprised at the variety of vegetables, fruit and tinned produce on offer; there was a real choice. In a covered area there were two largely unrefrigerated areas, one selling cheese and cooked meats and the other raw meats. I tasted a really delicious pâté, but to my disappointment, Professor Marsh advised me not to buy.
We were told that the fresh fruit and vegetables were imported from the other Baltic states and from the East. The supermarket was like any supermarket here. Eighty per cent. of its goods came from Lithuania. They made their own bread and cakes on the premises. We were rather surprised that we were allowed into some of the refrigerated areas, but I suppose we were rather special guests.
The impression we had at the end of our visit was what a huge task the CEEC countries had in transforming their states from communism into free democracies. In Lithuania we felt that the older politicians and farmers were not so enthusiastic as the younger politicians, civil servants and those in local government. The older ones hankered a bit for the past, where perhaps everything was simpler. Everyone there thought that the EU was not being as helpful as it could be because of the tariff barriers and the quotas and, above all, they thought that the CAP was a moving target—a natural resentment, one would think, and our recommendations deal with that. I hope that notice is taken of them and of the fears expressed.
The press coverage to our report was disappointing but at least the Farming News was enthusiastic, as was the letter to our ambassador from the Lithuanian Minister of Agriculture. He said that the report reflected the real situation of agriculture in that country.
Perhaps I can make one final point in relation to the integrated rural policy, which no one found easy to define. I would strongly support the recommendation in paragraph 113 of the report, which urges DG VI (agriculture) and DG XI (environment) to co-operate in achieving the necessary levels of harmonisation of activity. Co-operation between the directorates is extremely important.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am the first
1610
speaker in this debate who was not a member of the committee and am therefore the first from outside to pay tribute to the report as such and to its introduction by the chairman. I do that wholeheartedly, though I do not necessarily agree with everything in the report.
The report's title is Enlargement and Common Agricultural Policy Reform. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I take the opportunity to speak on what I regard as the basics of agricultural policy for this country and deal with enlargement only towards the end of my comments.
We were reminded in the report that the origin of the CAP lay in the need for food security and the price stability to support it. That was and probably still is a worthy aim. Twice in this century we have needed food security and, looking at the state of the world, it is impossible to say that we will not need it again. For a time, in the Cold War, we were tempted to think that any likely conflict would involve the kind of warfare in which food security was irrelevant. I do not know if we were right to think that, but it does not apply any longer. Moreover, I believe that a world run on sustainable lines—to which we are all now committed—means that there is a need for each country or each group of countries to be sustainable in themselves.
It is our misfortune in this country to be grossly over-populated. We must meet that situation with a population policy, and that has been widely neglected by politicians of all parties over a long period. I hasten to say that by a population policy I do not mean anything as Draconian as the policy applied in China. Those who are looking for a population policy would do well to consider the experience of the Indian state of Kerala. It started with the same kind of population increases as experienced by China but brought the increases down to the same situation as in China but all by voluntary and democratic means.
We must also continue to seek and maintain food security. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, touched on a matter discussed seriously in the report and taken up by various witnesses as to whether world prices for agricultural products will go up in the future. I still believe in the prices rise forecast by the World Watch team. The main argument against came from Mr. Hadley of MAFF, quoted in Section 13—that prices will not go up because, although there will be increased demand, those who are demanding will not have purchasing power. That is the most spine-chilling statement that I have seen for a long time. It is possible that Mr. Hadley is absolutely right. But the idea that the world is so appallingly run that we will permit mass starvation before we provide national and international finances to prevent it is one that I totally reject. If I say that that will happen only over my dead body, your Lordships may answer "probably". But I hope that it will also be over the dead body of the whole of the British Parliament.
If I and World Watch are right in our forecast of rising prices, we have at present a small window of opportunity of respite from intensive farming methods in which to put into place environmental policies.

1611
Environmental and agricultural policies should be integrated. That is another major matter which came up in the report. It is important that they should not be treated separately. We are beginning again to rediscover the importance of holistic policies. In that I agree with the evidence submitted on that subject by the RSPB.
The third strand of my comments this afternoon concerns the fact that I should like to see a growth of small mixed farms as a source of rural regeneration and a spur for the production of increased rural services, thus spilling over into the whole debate of rural policy, of which we may see more after the next Queen's Speech. Also, I wish to pay tribute to the Government's decision to ease the tax burden on rural shops. That is an immensely important step forward and absolutely necessary for the health of the countryside.
With regard to enlargement, I shall believe it when I see it. The European Union is more likely to shrink than expand in the near future. Some noble Lords will agree with some of the goals I have laid before the House and will say that food security and the holistic future for agriculture and the rural environment are worth while, but will see too many obstacles in the way in the shape of GATT, the WTO and other institutions. I agree with them that these form a massive barrier to a sane policy for British agriculture, but it is one which we must strive to overcome.
The report is a major contribution to the ongoing debate on what is one of the most important subjects which this country has to decide, and keep on deciding, year in, year out—what it is to do to keep its countryside and agriculture healthy and keep an agricultural policy which safeguards the security of this country and indeed of Europe.
4 p.m.
Lord Barber of Tewkesbury: My Lords, I, too, as a member of Sub-Committee D, wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and I endorse everything that has been said about him. I wish to mention another aptitude which, like all great chairmen, he has in great measure. I refer to his ability to make us enjoy all the sessions we have had with him. I also feel, because I leave Sub-Committee D at lunchtime tomorrow, that it would be proper for me to congratulate the noble Lord on the reports over which he has presided. They have been remarkable and the report before us is one of the most remarkable of all. It is remarkable for the perspectives which it reveals on issues which barely surface in the media. Where, for example, do you find any analysis of the depressing belief which comes through from the CEE countries that the EU is hardly bursting with enthusiasm to see them as members of the club?
Perhaps I may digress for a moment. When I came to your Lordships' House some years ago I had spent 10 years in that part of "quango land" where you were dead unless you had your policies fully explored in the public arena. When I came to your Lordships' House I was dismayed to find out how little circulation was granted to your Lordships' Select Committee reports. On some
1612
occasions there were not even press conferences to announce that they were there. I have spent a good deal of time in the past five years trying to publicise the merits of these remarkably valuable documents. I have even been to see the Clerk of the Parliaments. I gather that things are on the move and that the reports will be granted a much wider circulation than they have had in the past.
I anticipated that a number of noble Lords would wish to contribute to the debate so I decided that I would offer two perspectives which I think are important. One has been touched on and the other not at all. It is necessary to acknowledge fully the degree of hostility to further fundamental reforms on the part of some powerful member states. In previous years I believe that we did not take this point on board to the extent that was necessary. This hostility is irrespective of the CEEC accessions. A Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Gary Titley, who gave evidence to us, put it succinctly. He said:
"there is no possibility of every Member State government supporting a radical reform which will bring them into conflict with their farming communities … One government … could veto the whole process".
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred to Germany. I was particularly dismayed—I was going to say outraged—by a letter we received from the French Embassy here. The letter said:
"Some people see in the enlargement a means to question once again the basis of the CAP. This is not the case for France. It is not the case for the majority of the member states according to the first discussions which took place on this issue last year, nor for the Commission".
MAFF rather gloomily noted that some member states seemed reluctant to embrace the idea of change until the last possible minute.
We have already heard of Professor Stefan Tangermann, a quite remarkable man. I can put another slant on what we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Reay. Professor Tangermann and I were at Ditchley Park not long ago giving tongue at an international seminar. Some very interesting Franco-German attitudes to the CAP came out. Professor Tangermann was telling the seminar about his bond, which was a means of easing out of non-viable holdings aged and not very well off farmers. The Franco-German delegation was quite outraged. It said that far too many farmers had already left the industry and that measures were required to keep them in and not to encourage them to leave.
There is, too, the accompanying factor of the farm labour force. The Rural Development Commission has told us that since the 1992 reforms 5,000 farm jobs have disappeared in this country with another 20,000 in farm-related industries. There is also the factor, widespread within Europe, of the not fully employed members of the farming family at home who would be squeezed out on to the labour market under further pressure.
In the UK there may be some danger of believing that our farming community consists wholly of an elite desperate to say goodbye to the CAP and take on the world. If we believe that then we delude ourselves. For while our elite may be a bigger proportion than across

1613
the Channel, I have no doubt that the vast majority are extremely anxious about the prospect of a steady withdrawal of a support system that has generated large annual sums, often equal to or exceeding commercial farm revenue, and bestowed considerable capital assets like milk quota—for free—whose total value would put the National Lottery in the shade. I read the other day that a senior member of ADAS puts the milk quota figure—the money that has gone out into the farming community—at around £8 billion. Acknowledging that such a cosy system could not last indefinitely, it is total humbug to suggest that the harsher era to come will be welcomed enthusiastically. Perhaps confusion has arisen because there are many arable farmers who would not admit in public that they felt themselves to be incapable of surviving in a CAP-free world.
So, in the face of opposition, deep seated and in some countries politically powerful, the Commission is going to tread warily and may attempt to introduce change by skilfully fashioned stealth. But one of the main instruments to replace some of the CAP support is so stealthy that no one really knows what it is. The much quoted "integrated rural policy" sounds impressive but the nearest we came to a definition from the Commission was that it was concerned with,
"the quality of life, social and ethical issues",
which I suppose could mean something if you think hard enough. I understand that Commissioner Fischler has arranged a conference in Cork next month where the subject will be debated, but one suspects that for a long time its structure, purposes and application will be obscure and only time will tell if it is to become a practical instrument rather than a useful piece of Euro-speak holding flannel.
I have laboured this issue of hostility to reform because it has been persistently and grossly underestimated by commentators in this country, although at least one, the City Editor of the Daily Telegraph, has now made up his mind. He wrote despairingly last week:
"The CAP has proved impervious to logic, reform or even capping, and it is now far too deep-rooted to destroy".
And it is worth noting that there are now reports that even the forecasted reduction in arable aid payments for next year may be aborted. That is quite extraordinary. Perhaps, as the Council of Ministers decides that change is too awful to contemplate, we may have to rely on the US Department of Agriculture to arrange some reform through its battles against grain export subsidies. It is important to realise that it is the Commission which proposes and the Council of Ministers which disposes. A great deal of confusion has arisen from our failure to understand that.
But there is another issue which is also shrouded in uncertainty and lacks purposive analysis—the structure, shape and character of UK agriculture post CAP reform, assuming it comes about. If we can believe for a moment that after political blood-lettings in Brussels' corridors the CAP is reformed to meet eventual World Trade Organisation requirements, and direct support largely eliminated, we can also assume that very many farm holdings will drop below the profit line. The
1614
casualty list must be a heavy one. Just how many will depend almost wholly on where levels of parallel indirect support are pitched and how closely withdrawn grant is succeeded by new cushioning aids.
I am advised that some member states have organised themselves rather well to be recipients of indirect aid. Austria has virtually the whole of the country covered, and Germany one-third, with grant-attracting schemes.
As the golden days of arable aid fade away it becomes clear that we cannot rely on world prices, particularly for grain, rising to compensate in part. The recent euphoria on that score was gravely misplaced and we shall have to relearn that supply has a habit of swiftly catching up on demand so that above-average prices disappear. To sharpen up the realities, an international firm of farm accountants forecast last month that our UK farm profits were expected to fall by two-thirds in the near term and that the money-spinning days that had boosted profits since 1992 were coming to an end.
The likely picture emerging is, I think, distinctly opposite to that about which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, spoke. I think that the likely picture is of fairly painful restructuring; of bigger farms, of more mechanisation, of fewer employees, of more contract and share-farming. Perhaps the age of farming partnerships through professional farming companies on a really impressive scale may be on the horizon because of the economies of scale so easily made available to the medium-sized operation.
Because of its specialised nature it would be absurd to attempt too close a parallel with the pig industry which has been outside the CAP in a grant and subsidy-free trading world for the past 30 or 40 years. But it is fascinating to look at an industry left to get on with it in the open market place which has, of necessity, organised itself to compete and which is continuing to develop a vertical integration all on its own, along with a highly standardised quality product. It is calculated that in five or six years' time, fewer than 250 units—corporate or family—will be supplying 80 per cent. of the annual output of around 15 million pigs worth over £1 billion, with the processors down to six, one of whom already provides 47 per cent. of bacon output. Survival for the smaller units will depend on finding a niche in that vertical structure where they can perform adequately. It is those self-same market pressures which will be pressing down on the other farm commodities. The pigs scenario will be different only in scale and time. Have we really faced up to that prospect of deep structural change and all that it implies in terms of the farming industry in this country and of the broad spread of the clutch of rural policies?
Let us take for example the land use issue of the marginal grain land: unless the world grain price was considerably and consistently above current levels, grain growing simply could not pay on large tracts of the Cotswolds, the thinner chalk downs, and the poorer sands and gravels. We could postulate an unsupported UK grain price resulting in significant areas of marginal land going out of cereals production. What it would be going into is anybody's guess. Extensive livestock grazing? Work out the capital cost of so doing, and one has another think.

1615
Government publications including the White Paper, Rural England, have been helpful and full of sensible thoughts but have lacked a specific thrust towards setting out the logical effects of withdrawal of direct farm prices support in its various forms. Recent studies coming from university departments seem unduly preoccupied with abstract concepts relating to social issues in rural areas.
There is admittedly a great deal that cannot be visualised, but some models could be worked up as a framework for looking at the probabilities—not least in assessing just how soft or hard the landings might be for the farming industry as it moves from one era to another.
Those seeking out possibilities for softer landings might look to another report, Preparing Europe's Rural Economy for the 21st Century, by Professor John Marsh, Sub-Committee D's adviser, and the same Professor Tangermann about whom we have already heard. That report was prepared for the Land Use and Food Policy Inter-Group in the European Parliament. Ingeniously, it argues that reform might not necessarily mean eliminating price support completely. It proposes the retention of intervention prices in years when they are below average world market prices. The stocks could be bought in and sold later on the world market without subsidy. Overall, of course, what is regarded as "good" politics will constantly be employed to smooth the harsh edges of the market. When I look at that report and stop and think about what those politics would do, I have the very distinct impression that therein lies "CAP mark 3" without any radicalism at all.
We have had almost a plethora of documents on the current state of play in the farmed countryside and about the CAP, and a whole host of policy aspirations on the part of government. Now we need something more because, as the European Union enlarges itself and we have at least begun to talk seriously of CAP reform, we face a large black hole of ignorance on the likely emerging shapes of our agriculture in this country.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am president of the National Federation of Consumer Groups. I welcome the recommendations in the Select Committee's most excellent report. The evidence that was given to the committee by the Consumers in Europe Group and the National Consumer Council, and the subsequent examination of those witnesses, has borne fine fruit. Perhaps I may highlight four areas of importance to consumers: urgency of reform; the intervention system; reconsideration of the Commission's Option 2; and devolution of decision-making.
The committee recognised the need for reform now and expressed its concern about lack of progress. Its acknowledgement of the importance of the enlargement of the European Union and the future round of WTO talks scheduled for 1999 as pressures for reform is absolutely right.
1616
Turning to the intervention system, there is no justification for the intervention system to continue as it is at present. I support the committee in agreeing with the Commission that it should explore the possibility of restoring intervention to its real intended role of supporting farmers in a crisis.
The committee urges the Commission to reconsider Option 2 in its strategy paper. That option deserves our fullest support as it shifts from price support to direct payments for specific social, environmental and regional policy objectives. The Commission itself dismisses that more radical reform option because of, in its words, the
"undefined social and environmental risks that it implies".
Rubbish! A willing heart, wide consultation among consumer groups and good research would lead the Commission inevitably to the view expressed by the committee in paragraph 108:
"We see no such problems but, rather, substantial opportunities if the policy is implemented in good time and can be made sufficiently responsive to the varied areas in which it will be applied".
I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House will join me in warmly welcoming the committee's view that there is a strong case for certain policy decisions to be devolved to member states. As is stated in paragraph 114,
"In a Community which extends across extreme variations of terrain and climate, it is difficult to imagine that detailed environmental measures could be decided upon by, or implemented from, Brussels".
I, with the National Consumer Council, have long argued that,
"The Council of Ministers should agree to devolve responsibility for policy on direct income support payments to Member States within five years, subject to European Union guidelines to ensure the free movement of goods, fair competition and that there are no conflicts with European Union agricultural policy directives.
Within the guidelines, Member States would be able to develop schemes designed to meet their own social, regional and environmental policy goals".
On behalf of all consumers in the European Union, and especially poor consumers, the British Government must continue to press the Commission to reconsider Option 2, radical as it is—and rightly so—to shift the burden of support away from the price we pay when we buy food. It is the poorest who spend proportionately most of their income on food. If it is a country's choice to reach some particular environmental objective, we should all contribute through taxation and direct payments that can be seen and evaluated by all.
British consumers have found their voice through the representative groups lobbying on their behalf, supported and encouraged by governments, both Labour and Conservative, over many years. In that, we lead the field. Northern Europe, particularly Holland, Belgium and Sweden, is well represented and those consumers are well briefed on the CAP. Although consumer organisations exist in central and eastern Europe, they were set up quite recently and are still very weak. As we consider enlargement of the Community, it is for us to show the way forward in this reform and gather converts. Already it is obvious to our current partners in the Union that to adapt central and eastern European countries to current levels of CAP support would take

1617
spending to levels that none of us can possibly afford. Good! But without the Commission's reconsideration of Option 2 the poorest consumers in Europe will continue to pay the price and we—you and I—as consumers here will continue to pay a regressive tax as our partners slowly (and it will be slowly) lumber reluctantly towards reform.
We must press the Commission again to reconsider, to consult widely, not to miss this perfect opportunity to right a great wrong. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that this report is a great contribution to one of the most important debates of our time. May its wise decisions prevail.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the agricultural strategy paper is an important document which has been recognised as such, first of all, in your Lordships' House this afternoon and certainly by all the parties who gave evidence to the Select Committee.
The three options offered in this strategy paper were very significant, certainly Option 2, which has been touched upon, and also, of course, Option 3, which looks as though it is going to be the preferred option. Option 2 was undoubtedly the most radical, but, as has already been said, the memorandum from the French Embassy to the sub-committee suggested that Option 3 was more attainable, especially in the light of CAP interests and Community voting alignments. French influence on the CAP is still significant and, if I may say so to the last speaker, French influence on consumers in the CAP is even more significant. One would wish that all the effort that goes into consumer affairs in this country were replicated in France. Unless it is so replicated, the prospect of change in the attitude of the French Government, quite apart from their farmers, is considerably diminished.
As the report mentions, the volume of undecided matters is quite staggering. The World Trade Organisation is to review the role of agriculture in 1999. In addition we have 10 membership applications from CEEC countries with widely differing agricultural circumstances. The present relative CAP stability justifies an obligation to push on with reform proposals even after the major MacSharry CAP changes in 1992.
Figures from British Cereal Exports about world cereal markets in 1996–97 show a production increase of 8 per cent. to 1,436 million tonnes. On the other hand, consumption is up by 3 per cent. to 1,419 million tonnes. Stocks have risen to 195 million tonnes but are still only equal to 50 days' supply. European Union grain production figures for 1996 are estimated to be as high as 187 million tonnes by comparison with 174.3 million tonnes in 1995, but Spain's estimate in 1996 of 19.7 million tonnes has nearly doubled the 1995 figure of 10.8 million tonnes. (These figures came to me from COCERAL on 26th June this year.)
The 1996 US Farm Bill was signed into law and is to last five years from 4th April, which takes it to the year 2002. It makes major changes in arable and dairy sectors. The National Farmers Union of England and Wales has summarised the likely effects of the US Farm
1618
Bill in its brochure Farming Economy for July to September 1996. This brochure suggests that the USA is moving from a deficiency payment system to a decoupled payment system. The NFU view is that in the next World Trade Organisation round the USA will seek a much higher level of domestic subsidy cuts than the 20 per cent. agreed in the Uruguay round. This is forecast on the basis that most of its domestic support arrangements are now in what is called the "green box" and are thus immune from cuts. This is especially true of the arable and dairy sectors. The NFU believes the US Farm Bill is a further reason for the European Union to consider more CAP changes before the next WTO round in 1999.
The Select Committee report in a footnote records that the CAP regimes for fruit and vegetables, olive oil and wine were unreformed in 1992. The fruit and vegetables regime has since been the subject of reform proposals which were approved by the Agriculture Council in July of this year after 18 months of negotiation. One can reflect on that by looking at the prospect of what further changes there may be in the CAP.
Minimal changes have been made to Community regimes for sugar and milk where quota systems are firmly entrenched. The milk regime for its part is to be reviewed in 1997. Milk quotas are now a source of market distortion. Several speakers have mentioned that very fact this afternoon. They need major revision en route to gradual elimination. Palliatives such as cross-border quota sales will only prolong the status quo which is unfair to the United Kingdom in particular.
Wine is of major importance both to certain CEEC applicants and European Union states. Some CEEC producers are succeeding in the United Kingdom market on the basis of price plus quality. If the CAP wine regime is not soon reformed, the admission of certain CEEC applicants to the European Union will seriously increase the cost of the wine regime, including its administration.
In the context of CAP reform, the experience of New Zealand is of interest and importance. Despite qualifications that must be made because of structure, size and other factors, the pain of change for New Zealand was partly eased by the quality of its overseas marketing skills. In this area United Kingdom producers could learn from their New Zealand cousins.
The Select Committee report's consideration of the agrimonetary implications of adopting a Euro-currency was considerably helped by papers from Professor Swinbank of Reading University. In particular, the future, if any, of the green rate mechanism allowing adjustments of CAP prices is of vital importance to all member states, whether their present exchange rates are weak or strong.
Ending distortions caused by green rates has long been an objective for the CAP. As such, it has yet to happen. The introduction of the Euro by major countries in the European Union can hardly be of no significance for green rates. While monetary matters may be outwith the scope of Sub-committee D, agrimonetary systems certainly are not. It is therefore essential to get green

1619
rate systems on the active agenda of items to be settled before any monetary union. Here again the views and influence of France will be important.
A feature of both written and oral evidence on the strategy paper concerned methods of farming. The Select Committee report takes a balanced view of this question while recognising its significance. Moves to relate CAP prices to world prices are of major short and long-term consequence. Such changes will of themselves bring about radical structural alterations in farming sizes and methods. The report deals as realistically as possible with social and environmental aspects of this matter, given that the European Union is only beginning to reflect on alternatives.
If one attempts to cost CAP changes, plus the expense of granting full EU membership to CEEC countries, the total outlay is formidable, whatever basis of estimating one chooses. The Agriculture Council will be hesitant about changes on cost grounds alone. This must not become a reason by itself for delay. The Select Committee report strikes a note of urgency on this question. Although some may feel that this is the wrong approach at this time, the formidable body of evidence engendered by the strategy paper clearly suggests that, while cool, calm deliberation may not unravel every knot, delay in this area could be dangerous in many ways, while 1999 is not a distant prospect given the magnitude of the tasks.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as a director of a farming and land-owning company and of a company involved in the international food trade. It has been a privilege to be a member of Sub-committee D, which dealt with this important issue, and to serve under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Middleton, to whom praise has already been given. As one reads all the reports for which he has been responsible one sees that they have a consistent approach which leads to a sensible conclusion. They take us through all the issues of the CAP as it has evolved, the problems created for consumers, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, and the fact that it is insupportable and unacceptable over a long period. I hope that the four reports will be seen in that context and will be noted not only by the British Government, who have taken serious note, but, more importantly, by those who preside in Brussels and who clearly have a different view of the importance of the relative aspects to which my noble friend Lord Middleton has drawn close attention.
I agree with his sentiments on enlargement and what will happen to the CEE countries. Their economies are in a poor state. In my view, they must have the opportunity to improve their economic structures and to grow more in line with the rest of Europe. If not, we shall be creating future problems in respect of which we cannot imagine the outcome. One way of dealing with the matter is to offer them more trading and investment opportunities to improve the quality of their existing exports, in particular in the food sector. The noble Baroness, Lady David, sensibly drew attention to the
1620
fact that not all their quality products compare with those of the rest of Europe and therefore it is important that they should have an investment opportunity to be able to do so.
Many noble Lords have referred to the fact that we were confronted with two different opinions on the future of the agricultural market and the kind of role which the CAP might play within it. Attention has been drawn to the fact that Americans are taking a different view of the future and the way in which we should respond to it. A couple of weeks ago I was invited to the annual lunch of the Food and Drink Federation at which Admiral Crowe, the United States Ambassador in London, made the main speech. It might be interesting to hear some of the issues that he raised.
Admiral Crowe referred to the fact that America passed a 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, described as FAIR. Whether it is depends on where you are coming from, I suppose. The Act heralds a new era of management and production flexibility by enabling US farmers to plant for the market rather than for government programmes. That would be wonderful to see, would it not? That issue is extremely important because the shape and scale of global demand for food and food products is in flux. Populations which rely on staple commodities are multiplying dramatically. The World Bank predicts that by 2030 the world's population will have risen from around 5.7 billion today to 8.5 billion. Looking at the issue another way, estimates suggest that the trade forces unleashed by the Uruguay Round will increase world income by a massive 5.25 trillion dollars in the next decade. That is a mind-boggling figure and, naturally, a large portion of that amount will be spent on food and drink.
With those trends in mind, Washington hopes to increase annual agricultural exports by 7 per cent. to the year 2000. That would yield a 50 billion dollar increase in economic activity, creating an additional 378,000 jobs. That will not come cost free because, as has been pointed out, the American Government will spend a great deal of money to make that happen. However, the point is that they are spending the money to create trade, jobs, business and wealth for America. We are spending a great deal of money in Europe to support agricultural trade which creates little wealth for anyone. Although I have been in the farming industry all my life, and I take the point that we have gathered billions of pounds as a result of quotas, I have always been against quotas, grants and support of any kind. At the end of the day they merely increase the cost of entry but put no more money into the producers' pockets. During the past few years the CAP has spent more than £20 billion a year on the CAP, but the lot of agricultural farmers has risen not one jot.
Where does that lead us and what will happen? I agree with the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Barber, who has a wide knowledge of what the agricultural industry will do. At the end of the day, no more attention will be paid to this report than was paid to the previous excellent reports of my noble friend Lord Middleton. We shall remain dominated by the timeset of the past, which believes that the only way in which

1621
Europe can develop is by having more controls and regulations rather than seeing the opportunity of the market-place.
The pressures on British agriculture will be brought about by changes in the world markets rather than by quick decisions taken within the European Commission to make things happen rapidly. We shall see steady changes and adjustments as the importance of the global markets impacts on industries and the European economy most of all. It is beyond the limit of the European economy as it stands to continue to create the wealth which will make possible the payments that are now being envisaged. Therefore, the adjustments must be made slowly. I believe that the American example of taking advantage of the global markets, which will undoubtedly increase during the next 20, 30 or 50 years, will be the key factor.
My noble friend Lord Barber referred to the pig industry. We can see the dairy industry moving slowly in the same direction. I am aware of four large Cheshire dairy companies which have decided that now is the time to sell out. They believe that milk and quota prices are probably as good as they will be for some time and now might be the time to turn their assets into cash and to put that into something which has a longer-term view. That will create pressures on the rural economy.
I turn to the final issue to which I wish to refer; the integrated rural economy which is referred to in Mr. Fischler's report. No one knows what it means—it is quite clear that Mr. Fischler has no idea what it means—but it sounds good and it sounds as though something positive might happen. From previous experience of what the Commission means, the danger is that it might mean that we shall be told what to do in every respect. It may turn out to be a regulatory system and that the Commission will say, "We will have a building here and a field there and that kind of a forest there". That would be a disaster, would it not? That would work against the interests of Britain, our industry, agriculture and the nation.
What it might mean, and what I hope it means, is that there will be an understanding of the changes which are to take place in our rural economy and that people will move from what has been the stable wealth creator in rural areas—that is the production of food—to other opportunities and that the market will press for them and demand them. Governments and the Commission must understand that they must provide the opportunities to encourage that change and not resist it. All successful government actions are those which promote natural change and opportunity rather than trying to hold on to something which at the end of the day is unsustainable. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is not in his place but I strongly believe that the only situation which is truly sustainable is economic growth and greater wealth for the people who wish to be employed in all these businesses.
I support the report and I hope that as many people as possible will read it, support it and act upon it.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, your Lordships will be
1622
pleased to know that we have reached the half-way stage in this debate. I am the ninth of 18 speakers. Of course, that means that many of the earlier speakers have said some of the things that I wish to say.
As other members of the committee have done, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for the way in which he chaired the committee and for the help that he gave us all in reaching our conclusions. Also, I support his comments about our professional adviser, Professor Marsh, and our Clerk, who did a marvellous job. If your Lordships look at the report, it can be seen that there are 250 pages of evidence, which they have managed to summarise to 20 pages. To an extent, that demonstrates how much the evidence agreed, one person with another. But, nevertheless, that is a great achievement.
In a way, I shall follow the noble Baroness, Lady David, because I too visited Poland. Some of the comments towards the end of my speech will be based on what we saw there. But that visit has also influenced me as regards the reasons for the earlier part of my speech. Again, I return to those words "timing" and "programme". We are in an information technology age and yet there seem to be no points on the critical path at which time decisions must be taken. We have the end of the present CAP policy and the WTO meetings, both of which will take place in 1999. We have also the EMU and green money problem, which comes around, strangely enough, at about the same time. Therefore, there are many reasons why we must start to talk now, or the Commission must start to talk now.
Also, it is not only delaying the planning in the 10 countries which wish to join. Because of the uncertainty, it is delaying the planning of inward investment, perhaps from this country into those countries. In another report we heard how a large food producer found that, because of quotas and such matters, it could not produce any more in this country and had to set up an operation in Ireland, I believe.
The same must apply to people who would like to set up operations in, for example, Poland. I happen to know, because I heard it outside, that the factories of the Polish Sugar Corporation, which have been advised in part by the British Sugar Corporation, are supplying a major food processor which was installed in that country from this country. Therefore, the quality and improvements that we can bring about if we know what the future policies are to be are important.
We have heard the words "compensation", "adjustment", "integrated rural policy", "regional rural policy" and "the environment". Indeed, we use those words in our report. We have said also that there should be use of the social, structural and cohesion funds in the whole planning of the future. But does not that mean that there are other directorates-general which need to be involved? Does that not take time? I note that the report mentions Directorate-General V, IX and XVI. They cover social, environmental and general cultural planning. The CAP reform goes far beyond agriculture: it goes into the whole structure of many of those countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, talked about money. On the radio on Sunday morning I heard that the only way in which a small farm in Wales was able to make a

1623
profit was from the support systems available. That means that money must go round in circles, and when it does that, every time it touches "go" somebody removes 5 per cent. or more. The bureaucracy involved is enormous.
I turn now to Poland. I shall not go into quite so much detail as did the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the meetings that we had. My feeling was that in general those on the governmental side and the parliamentary side were very positive and very interested and we had an extremely open discussion.
However, I wish to talk about the infrastructure in Poland. We visited a fairly modern dairy which was certainly upgrading itself by using computerised control systems to ensure the quality of its product. But one must realise that that dairy was supplied by 8,000—I repeat 8,000—producers, some of whom were supplying only five or 10 gallons—in other words, 25 to 50 litres—a day. Your Lordships can imagine the infrastructural problems of getting that there. More than 500 people were employed to collect the milk. That is a great deal of rural employment. As the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said, if you start to make those changes and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, if you reduce the number of dairies, you will reduce rural employment in Poland.
But also one of the problems about the lack of planning—and this is where I return to the financial problems—is that there is no market in land in Poland. People just go on farming because there is no money. Nobody has any confidence in what future prices will be in Poland. The Government seemed interested in the idea of an agricultural bond. The average age of farmers in Poland is about 60. The bond would enable older people to leave farming, or perhaps to lease or share farms. But at the moment they struggle on.
We visited one small farm which milked 25 cows, with a total herd of about 60. If that farmer wanted to expand, the nearest land consisted of two or three small plots which were 10 kilometres away. Your Lordships can imagine the problems of trying to farm such an area. The farmer was keen to expand. He had support from the dairy to install a modern milking system, a chilled system, in order to provide milk of the necessary quality. He was efficient, keen and young.
The other place that we visited in Poland was a fruit processing plant which processed fruit and vegetables and which made fruit juices and so on. Before we visited the factory we were taken out to see one of the suppliers. He was not a major supplier, but because he was an entrepreneur and had been efficient he was busily building a cold storage unit so that he could keep his apples in optimum condition and receive a higher price for them by selling them to the apple juice processor in February and March instead of having to sell them all by December. That is the entrepreneurial side of Poland.
They need to know which way they are going; whether they will have milk or sugar quotas and so on. I welcome this report.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I welcome this excellent report and thank my noble friend Lord Middleton and the
1624
members of his sub-committee for it. Several years ago, I had the privilege of sitting on that sub-committee for several years and not a lot has changed.
In speaking in the debate, I must declare an interest in the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance for which I act as a parliamentary adviser. As well as being advised by that alliance, I also received advice from the Food and Drink Federation. I am delighted to see that the more important views of both those trade associations have been included in the relevant recommendations in the report.
The particular recommendations which I invite your Lordships strongly to support—and indeed, nearly every noble Lord who has spoken has done so—are those which press the European Union and the Commission to reform the CAP and to do so now and not later; and in particular to drop support prices and supply management mechanisms as recommended in paragraphs 128 and 129.
As other noble Lords have said, as time goes on, the need for these changes becomes ever more pressing for all members of the European Union. But, as I indicated earlier, I remember Sub-Committee D making very similar recommendations about 15 years ago to the European Community. Ever since, there have been similar recommendations and reports, several of which, happily, have been produced under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Middleton who has been remarkably consistent not only in his own approach to the problem, but also in following those that went before.
It seems to me that the problem is the grip that the French have on the Commission in general and DGVI in particular, as epitomised in the concluding sentences of paragraph 27 of the report. I think that it is almost cheeky of the French Embassy to make that contribution. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury. However, I would quarrel with him on one point. The noble Lord gave the impression that it was all new information that he was kindly giving us, but we had actually realised it—in my case for at least 20 years, and I suspect that many of my noble colleagues had known about it for much longer. Apart from that, I agree with everything that the noble Lord said.
It seems to me that the basis for it, if I may touch on that, comes from Napoleon or indeed Colbert. If you read a bit of history, you will see how they recommended this kind of approach in the 17th and 18th centuries. The French do not seem to have realised that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo. When he said that the British—although I believe that he probably referred to the English, as I am sure the Scots would understand because Napoleon was so ignorant—were a nation of shopkeepers he thought that he was insulting us. But, in fact, he was giving us all the praise in the world. If only the French could become a nation of shopkeepers, we would be a lot better off in Europe and, indeed, in the world as a whole.

1625
Artificial prices to protect farmers instead of decoupled payments have the effect of interfering with trade in all types of agricultural products, processed foods as well as primary products. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Wade put that a great deal better than I can. Since the CAP was imposed on the Community, mainly by the French for the reasons that I have given, as part of the Treaty of Rome—and it is nothing new—the world has moved on. That is what these people must understand. In particular, with all sorts of particular misgivings by nearly every individual nation, including the United States of America, the world as a whole has come to see that the freest possible trade is to the benefit of everyone. Some of the remarks that my noble friend Lord Wade quoted from the American ambassador made that so very clear.
Broadly speaking, each stage of world trade agreement is more free than its predecessor. The WTO, for example, is freer than the GATT. Cannot the French and their lackeys in DGVI see that major changes to the CAP are necessary soon—and I emphasise the word "soon"—to meet the internationally agreed WTO, as well as to help the agreed expansion of the European Union? I am delighted to see that our own National Farmers Union goes along with that need; indeed, I believe that practically everyone else here also does so.
But we can only ask the French and the Commission to admit that a CAP based on managed prices is fatally flawed and detrimental to free trade if we are prepared to accept freer trade ourselves. An example of where the report does not include and perhaps—I hope not—does not support the views of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionary Alliance and those of the Food and Drink Federation is in not protesting at the maintenance of a highly artificial minimum import price system for soft fruit which is an important Polish product. The artificial price system concerned is maintained because of United Kingdom Government insistence. Perhaps when he comes to wind up, my noble friend Lord Lucas might give encouraging support to the thought that the UK Government are about to change their policy in that respect. Then we will be able to say whatever we need to say to these rather anciently-informed countries across the sea. That point is referred to by a Food and Drink Federation representative in column 287 of the oral evidence on page 113 of that section of the report.
Of course, the growers of our own food must be given sufficient financial help where this is necessary. Paragraphs 128 to 135 of this report spell out sensible action to achieve this very clearly. It must be remembered, however, for the good of us all in the Community, that value added processed foods traded overseas with minimum or preferably no restriction, bring in much more financial benefit to the European Union than trade in primary agricultural products. Therefore, the Commission needs to listen more to what DGIII says in that respect than to DGVI. We need the European Commission to have the slogan: free trade for all.
4.57 p.m.
The Duke of Somerset: My Lords, as an outgoing member of Sub-Committee D, perhaps I may join others
1626
in welcoming this particular and important report. Perhaps I may also congratulate and thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for his resourceful competence in chairing the committee and echo the remarks so well put by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on that score. Although the subject of the report was visited by the committee only two years ago, this new report is still very important for a number of reasons. Not least among these is the emphasis provided by the similar, but stronger, message that this second report delivers.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I believe that the committee felt strongly that the impact of its report was not as resounding as it would have wished. I am told that these reports are well regarded both in the industry and in the EU Commission, yet the exposure that they achieve in the media in this country is disappointingly limited. Perhaps this second attempt, which is logical in its conclusions and attainable in practice, will focus the minds of the Commission more accurately. For, like it or not, it is they, together with the Council of Ministers, who now decide the path of British agriculture and the health of the environment in this country.
We have surrendered most of our sovereignty to Brussels, so, barring an upset by Sir James Goldsmith, we are reduced to arguing our position as a small cog in the European Union. Unfortunately, even in this process, whatever the merits of our case, other considerations will override. So it matters not that it is crazy to pay producers to dump perfectly good fruit and vegetables, or to store indefinitely perfectly good meat products in intervention, or for us to import French milk when we have a perfectly good capacity of our own, for it is in reality the artificial politics of the trade-off between Ministers carrying the electoral baggage of 15 nations that triumph.
While this report is much more temperate in language than my efforts, it emphasises the need to reform the CAP. The question, of course, is whether this need will be acted upon in time; that is, before the US Farm Bill encourages what is estimated to be a 30 per cent. expansion in production by the end of this century and the corresponding reduction in world prices that will inevitably result. The report makes it quite clear that the enlargement of the European Union to the east is only one of a number of factors that are driving this need for change. The future round of the World Trade Organisation talks, the agricultural budget and the future shifts in world market demand are the other main factors. However, enlargement per se is a crunch subject for the European Union, and particularly as regards its agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, quoted Sir John Birch, our former ambassador in Budapest. The noble Lord mentioned the ambassador's sensible words with which he greeted us when we visited that country. Those words are just as true now as they were two years ago.
As we see the former Soviet Union collapsing and we watch the determined fanatics of Islam spreading their wings closer to the border, and sometimes within NATO, it would be disastrous to permit the CEE countries to think that life would be better outside NATO and outside the European Union. It is ironic that

1627
they strive to join this club, to share in the social and economic benefits and the perceived stability and democracy, while many inside endeavour to push back the tentacles of federalism and the EMU. Perhaps by the year 2000 some of those countries will enter a shell from which some of the former inmates have fled, or perhaps they will enter an entity that has seen sense and has seen that some of its policies are unworkable and its intrusions unwanted and that its unelected dictatorial attitude has been rejected.
It is said that 60 per cent. of German people do not want a European currency which involves the loss of the Deutschmark. One can probably point to a similar figure in other member countries, including our own. The EMU is vitally linked to the CAP and its future. This link is called the agrimonetary system, whereby a "green rate" system of conversion is used for support payments. If, despite the wishes of the populace, a form of EMU is imposed on some countries, it is likely that some members will stay outside. How then will a single market be sustained? It would be most difficult if the current price support system was still in place. This subject is only touched on in this particular report, but is glaringly omitted in the strategy paper that we are discussing. Perhaps there is a parallel here between the CEE countries striving to hit the moving target of the CAP by the year 2000, and the British Government trying to hit an electorate without telling it what their monetary policy might be by then.
If the European Union really wants to welcome the CEE countries into the fold, it must make greater efforts to encourage fairer trade. It is still too obvious to most observers that the balance is tilted far too far in favour of established member country organisations. To pay lip service to an ideal and then deliberately to block any implications of that decision should be derided. The report instances where this has happened and makes appropriate recommendations. However, the attitude of the Council is demonstrated by the reduction in the tariff quotas which govern imports of agricultural produce from CEE countries. A proposed 10 per cent. increase was watered down to 5 per cent. for five years. Licences issued for these quotas are again biased to their benefit. The redoubtable Professor Tangermann, whose views on much of this subject seem so sensible—and of whom we have heard a little already—proposes auctioning them, with the funds so raised used to finance aid and development programmes within the CEE countries. The report favours that course of action. It would seem a sensible move.
The report devotes much space to the problem of the mechanism of reform. Either this can come first or last in Community thinking. If it comes first, with a workable plan it will be much easier to convince other members of the need for reform. If the decision to reform is made first, the mechanism could become a source of endless discord. Our report lays out a clear path, and this is one the Government should advocate. The Government appear to support the proposals, including still seeing a role for the concept of cross compliance on existing payments. The report describes that concept as unhelpful. I was pleased to note that the
1628
CLA also rejects cross compliance. That excellent organisation makes an important caveat where it warns of the dangers of the bond system. That bond would be allocated to the producer, who is so often a tenant in the United Kingdom. I declare my interest as an owner of let land. I would be alarmed at the prospect of value being syphoned away from one party to another. If that led to marginal land becoming less viable, the landowner would no longer have the resources to look after and care for that land. That could only be detrimental to the rural economy.
I wish briefly to support fully the notion of the integrated rural policy. I hope that the interpretation of that policy of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will be implemented. I support the notion of fully decoupled, time limited aids working alongside separate policies with environmental and social objectives. The policy should be separate from the CAP. I return to where I started. It seems imperative that having debated this important topic in this House every effort is made by the Government to push the message home to both the Commission and the Council of Ministers. It must be got right this time because the 1992 reforms impacted only slightly on production levels. Any improvement has come from depletion of stocks through short-term world market changes. The CAP is still vulnerable.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising farmer for over 40 years. Perhaps more importantly, as an ex-member of Sub-Committee D, I may be allowed to say that I found this report arguably the most interesting that the committee has ever produced. As I believe my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, that means almost certainly that the EU will take no notice of it. My noble friend Lord Middleton may accuse me of being too cynical. I hope that is the case.
Certainly this report has made me realise that we have two choices. We can either continue with the present policy of fortress Europe protecting the agricultural industry and taking little account of what is happening outside the existing EU, or we can strive to make our industry economically sound and aim to be competitive in world markets. In response to the comments of my noble friend Lord Wade I say, "horror of horrors". If we follow his suggestions, I shall have to produce for the market rather than for the subsidy, and that would be a serious blow for me. However, to be serious, I cannot envisage that we can attempt to resolve any of our problems, in particular the accession of the CEE countries, until a firm decision is taken to follow the latter choice; that is, a competitive agriculture. In paragraph 87 the report states firmly that at the heart of any future CAP should be policies which ensure that producers are able to compete at world market prices. That is further elaborated upon and endorsed in paragraphs 100 to 102, 114 and 116.
With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I think that all your Lordships would agree with such an obvious objective: that we should not continue to seek to be fortress Europe. But the snag is that the present system encourages exactly the opposite

1629
approach with valuable quotas, headage payments and set-aside payments which perpetuate the status quo and inefficiency that hinders the young progressive farmer. Being old and worn out, the present system suits me well. Indeed it suits most existing farmers well, but such a system must end in chaos as anyone will know who has taken note of what is happening in the Pacific Rim where its philosophy is totally and aggressively outward looking. That will make quite sure that unless Europe takes a similar outward-looking view she will end up an even poorer and deprived continent than she seems determined at present to be. Unless we, too, adopt such a policy, how can the CAP accommodate the inevitable future increase of cheap food from the CEE countries? Following the noble Duke's line, are we to have two tier subsidies? The thought appals me.
Of course because the present system is comfortable for existing farmers—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, implied that includes me—it will be politically very difficult to move to an outward looking and competitive agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, referred eloquently to that point in his speech. Inefficient farmers will go to the wall, which could or might cause social problems in the village. The United Kingdom has seen that happen to a much greater extent than those across the Channel. However, like my noble friends Lord Middleton and Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, I am convinced that the problem must be faced now rather than later. Nettles not grasped this year always become much more difficult the next year. Alternatively, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, perhaps I should say that thistles not sprayed this year become worse next year.
I believe, however, that there are many ways to alleviate the problem. The first and most important is to state that an internationally competitive policy is the long-term objective in which there will be no place for supply controls such as quotas. A time schedule should be produced to avoid farmers getting into impossible financial difficulties in buying, selling and owning quotas. We can see that happening every day—and I own quite a bit, thank goodness.
Finally, as every developed country supports its agriculture in one way or another, it will be necessary to do so in the United Kingdom. I entirely agree that there is absolutely no place whatever for cross-compliance; and I once again ask the Government, as have so many noble Lords already, and the Commission to look at Professor Tangermann's bond scheme. I am sure that it could be made to work. I fully understand that there are some problems, as the noble Duke said.
I thank my noble friend Lord Middleton, Sub-Committee D, and its specialist adviser for producing such an excellent and thought-provoking report. It should be compulsory reading for every farmer.
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his committee for this excellent report and join with my noble friend Lord
1630
Barber of Tewkesbury and the noble Duke in the call for wider publication of these reports. The report is in the best tradition of reports of Select Committees of this House but they do not gain sufficient advertisement. Recently the sub-committee on fisheries issued its report and I had to make considerable efforts to ensure that copies were distributed to heads of other European member states. I hope that the efforts which my noble friend Lord Barber stated that he has put in train will have more effect than mine have had.
Deep structural reform of the CAP is required. Speed is essential if anything is to be done. World prices at present provide a propitious moment when there might be some movement. Nevertheless, I believe that the opposition of the French and the Germans, with their provincial farmers, is a problem which will be overcome only with great difficulty.
The reform is recognised as a unique opportunity to bring together agricultural and environmental interests. As may be expected, I make no apology for bringing to your Lordships' attention the cause of organic farming, which delivers environmental standards of the highest order and sustainable farming policy which does not depend on the agrichemical industry and promotes biological diversity in a way that no other system can offer. It also produces a standard of nutritious food which makes a mockery of the fast food and supermarket cheap food outlets that have overtaken our society today. Indeed, I am confident in saying that. I believe noble Lords will agree that there is a growing understanding in the country of the importance of diet and its effect especially on the young and the youth of our country. Recently a young woman stated on television that she had not heard the word "diet" until she was 30. That could only happen to a generation subsequent to the 1960s which has known only cheaper and faster food.
In addition to its contribution to society, extensive farming requires additional labour and a well-trained team of farm workers. By the same token, it takes the farm worker out of his satellite-controlled cab and restores the community spirit and the village farming environment. Above all, it promotes biological diversity in a way that no other system can.
As I have said in previous debates, there is no suggestion of wholesale transfer to organic farming, which would in any event be totally impractical, but we should target an increase from the present 0.3 per cent. of UK arable acreage through to a magnificent trebling to 1 per cent. That is the ambition of MAFF. I am very glad to have the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench on the document that she has produced entitled MAFF-Sponsored Research into Organic Agriculture. It indicates that organic farming is a self-sustaining system and can be profitable. It remains only to persuade the Treasury to increase the assistance to those who wish to convert with decoupled and time-limited aid.
Paragraph 112 of the conclusions to the report states:

1631
"The policy is sufficiently flexible to accommodate a spectrum of farming ambitions. The farmer who wishes to farm extensively and use organic methods would have the opportunity to benefit from relevant environmental incentives which may add to income in ways which make his business viable".
I am glad to welcome the report particularly on that basis and I hope that it will go a long way towards persuading DGIII to pay some attention to DGVI.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I intervene briefly before the Front Bench speakers during this important debate. I do so to put one very simple question to my noble friend the Minister. Your Lordships have agreed that the CAP is in need of urgent and radical reform. Most of your Lordships seem to see such reform as necessary in order to permit the enlargement of the Community, although many of us believe that reform is essential, whether enlargement takes place or not, simply because the CAP has become such an environmental and economic disaster in itself.
But a number of your Lordships have mentioned the opposition to reform which exists among other Community nations. My noble friend Lord Middleton, in his excellent introductory speech, said that most member states would need persuading of the need for reform. The noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, emphasised this problem, as did my noble friend Lord Reay.
So I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government have given much thought as to just how difficult it is likely to be to persuade the Council of Ministers to agree to any worthwhile change at all. I suggest this because of the way in which the qualified majority voting system works under the Treaty of Rome. I would remind your Lordships that there are 87 such votes among the 15 member nations; 62 are required to carry a motion and 26 to block one. The UK has only 10 votes and, as your Lordships will be aware, we are often alone in our views. I do not know how lonely we are in our wish radically to reform the CAP, but the balance of national interest does not look encouraging. I say this because I understand—and I am open to correction from my noble friend on the Front Bench on the precise picture—that the principal paymasters of the CAP are Germany, Denmark and ourselves. We have only 24 votes between us.
However, I understand that the recipient countries of the CAP's largesse have some 54 votes between them. Even assuming that Germany and Denmark were to vote with us—my noble friend Lord Reay cast doubt upon the Germans' enthusiasm even for starting to discuss reform—we would be powerless to effect change because 54 votes are likely to be ranged against it. I repeat that 62 votes would be needed to effect reform. So even if these national voting figures and allegiances turn out to be somewhat pessimistic, I trust that my noble friend the Minister will accept that agreement about reform may well prove impossible to reach.
1632
If my noble friend does not agree with this analysis—which would, of course, be very good news—can he tell us how the Government see the qualified majority votes being cast for and against adequate reform of this pernicious policy?
It seems to me that, as with the many other problems created by our membership of the European Communities, once again it is the Treaty of Rome itself which lies at the root of the problems we have been discussing. But this is not the time to pursue that deeper problem. I merely await my noble friend's reply.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I did not quite follow all that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, meant in his short question, but I gather that he is against the CAP and Europe in general. We all recognise that there are problems. However, the report is, as usual with anything chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, excellent to the point that it follows the logic of previous reports. That is not always the case. I join in the congratulations to him on his period as chairman and trust that he will stay on the committee and keep a steely eye on the next chairman, to keep him on the right lines.
We must look at the report, but to see the effect of all the global tendencies on our agriculture at present we must also look at agriculture in the past in this country. We had the golden age of the industrial revolution where land was taken up, systems were improved and the wealth of the farming population increased. The population increased and there was a spell of prosperity. Because of the industrial revolution there was an agricultural revolution which, until 1870 or 1880, was a system of consistent progress. Then the prairies were mined and the horrible Vanderbilts constructed railways to take the grain out of the prairies, bringing it over here. Then we entered a period which, apart from wars, set the countryside and farming back enormously.
The great enthusiasts for the world market might reflect on the misery and poverty of the pampas in Argentina, the plains of the States and Canada and agricultural areas in this country, right up to the last war. The great open market did not seem to bring many blessings to the agricultural populations of the world. We should reflect on that when we look at the great explosion of world trade that is to come.
One can easily see what has happened in Eastern Europe because of our lack of thought, or the lack of preparation in those countries for any transfer to a free market system or democracy. One of the worst situations exists in the Ukraine. I am on the Council of Europe and we listened to a speech from the Ukrainian member detailing the real situation of unemployment in the Ukraine. He reckoned—and he produced figures to prove it—that 40 per cent. of the population were living in poverty and destitution. Some idiots suggested, as we did—and it is still suggested in Russia—that in 500 days Russia could be transformed into an open market economy. That is just not true; it is madness. It will take at least 50 years for Russia to reach that stage. One only has to visit the Eastern European countries, particularly

1633
Russia, to see that all enterprise has been killed. Most of the people have been so accustomed to direction that they do not understand what to do in a free market situation. Because we thought it could be done quickly, we have turned many such people against us and against democracy. They long for a socialist autocracy in which at least they were fed and looked after. We should not look for tremendous results from a great explosion of production in the world unless we can do something for the people who will be displaced from their jobs.
The near east countries like Poland and Hungary, which I know quite well, will progress quite rapidly. They could probably cope easily with the agricultural countries of the European Union by the year 2000 because they start with a low base. I have a couple of friends who farm in Poland. They are getting on quite well, working hard and trying to overcome the problem of a non-existent system. They cannot obtain fertiliser unless they get a lorry and go to Germany themselves to find it. But they pay good wages for their country, just over £50 a week. If we relate that to the price of a tonne of barley—in their case about £95—then they are in a favourable position to compete with wages in this country. Here, the wage for a week is more than two tonnes of barley. They are progressing, and will progress, because there is a residue of enterprise left. They have not been ground down for so long as the Russians have. They will progress quite rapidly. At a guess, they will produce what they were producing (with too many men, and expensively in the Communist period) in less than three years' time. I do not believe that the very high prices are as assured as we seem to think. Certainly world reserves of grain will rise by some 20 million tonnes, a figure I have seen this year. It is not a great deal in terms of what they have been, but there is tremendous potential in Eastern Europe and probably in the United States for an increase in grain production which may well see the present opportunity disappear. So we have to watch that. I understand that in America the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act (FAIR) will produce some 5 billion dollars a year in straight subsidy to the farmers based on past performance. That will be guaranteed on a slightly declining scale for seven years. What will happen after that is not stated. Support for the dairy industry is to be phased out, slowly, in about three years. Therefore, the present high prices may not last.
In the present situation a great deal of the nonsense of the CAP could be stopped. I could not agree more with those who point at quotas. It is absolute madness that in some cases a quota is worth more than the farm to which it applies. It is absolute madness that we still have the supports for olive oil on which I reported long, long ago when I was chairman. I understand that the situation is still the same. Nothing at all has been done about it. Again, the report refers to fruit. The situation is ridiculous. People pour fruit into the intervention system and there is straight-up corruption, proven by visits. Any sort of fruit will be passed. Farmers do not try to market the fruit or improve it. They produce for intervention alone. The Commission is not tackling these problems. It is tackling wine, and the wine
1634
industry itself is doing something about it. But the problems are not being tackled very fast. I agree with the committee that it should move a little faster.
On the other hand, one has to appreciate the situation in France, parts of Germany, Austria and other places, where people are desperately worried about the effect on the rural population of entering a fully competitive world system. They will take a great deal of persuading. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referring to the number of votes, may be quite right; it may be difficult to persuade people. I believe that facts will persuade them, but it will take time. The report will do a great deal of good in that it will lead people to think about these matters. It will be studied in the Commission and that will be extremely helpful.
I do not believe that we can altogether abandon decent protection for primary producers. Whether they mine tin or produce rubber, tea, wheat, pigs or poultry, primary producers receive a raw deal from the market. The great market is not very good for them. Some system needs to be devised to provide an element of protection. The trouble with the CAP is that the market was not followed; countries tried to go against the market. A system of protection has to recognise and alleviate market factors. The way in which we have done it is to go wholly against the market and try to force an issue. That is why we are landed with the ridiculous system that we have at present.
The Council of Europe has recognised the unease among the various governments of Europe in relation to the situation in the countryside. It is a situation that has always been there. Young people in farming need a job to go to. Jobs in the city are declining. If they are unemployed they get into trouble and the result is crime. They need somewhere to go. Without doubt, jobs in farming will become fewer.
The great cry is that a rural charter be produced and put to governments for their consideration. The essence of the rural charter is simply that you treat the countryside as a whole: you do not let agriculture decline. You do not let the fabric decline without putting something in its place. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has been doing that in this country, and it has been done in other ways. The approach needs to be developed as a definite policy. Of course, it has to be "decoupled"—that is the modern word. But it is an important approach. I believe that is what is meant by "rural integration", the phrase so despised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade.
There needs to be time. I do not believe that the CAP can be reformed in three years. I entirely agree with the report: it will take a little time. This is a good report. It deserves to be studied in Brussels and elsewhere.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his Committee on producing an authoritative, objective report with excellent analysis on this very complicated subject.
The first and most obvious point to make is that the 10 CEE countries each have their own problems. As the report says, it is a great mistake to treat them as an Eastern bloc. I had the good fortune to visit, albeit briefly, seven of the 10 countries referred to in the report. On each occasion I made it my business to meet farmers, officials and politicians. I was struck by the similarity of many of their problems as they each emerged from the command economy. I was equally struck by the great differences in their agriculture potential, social structure and rural economy. I also noted a very important point which was perhaps not picked up by the committee; namely, the extreme unreliability of many of the statistics quoted from the CEE countries for production and yields. Perhaps I may illustrate that with one brief anecdote.
On a cattle breeding farm in one eastern European country, we were entertained first in the boardroom with the usual hospitality and were told that the yield of the cows on that breeding station was 7,000 litres. I thought that figure was pretty good. When we went outside and looked at the cattle I should have been surprised if they were giving 700 litres. I have never seen cattle in such poor condition. When I managed to extract myself from the hosts and speak to the consultant from Brussels who was with us, I asked what on earth was going on. He said that 7,000 litres was the figure that they used to have to report to the central planners. It is the figure that they are still reporting because their jobs depend on it. That was only a year or two ago.
The committee recognised the wide range in the figures quoted for the possible cost of accession. We know that the figures which are quoted depend entirely on truly heroic assumptions which are made as the basis of the highly sophisticated calculations that follow. That point was well made in the excellent written evidence of Professor Allan Buckwell of Wye College, who said (page 185):
"I draw attention to these aspects of the document, not because I have any reason to suspect systematic bias in the projections, but merely to underscore the highly speculative nature of the analysis conducted which tries to peer 15 years into the future for 25 countries and a dozen commodities".
With regard to the cost of accession, we should not forget that the agricultural budget in the CAP is allowed to grow under budgetary guidelines by 0.74 per cent. of GDP each year. It would be interesting to know whether the Ministry has made any calculations of what that might be around the year 2000 and how much of that allowable increase in the EC budget for agriculture would be available to accommodate the cost of accession.
The other great imponderable is a situation mentioned by a number of noble Lords; namely, the world supply and demand for food over the next decade. Some argue that increased demand from a rising world population and increasing prosperity of certain of the major
1636
players—for example, China and the countries of the Pacific Rim—will automatically call forth increased supply. That argument is based largely on past experience. Others argue that physical problems of water supply and other agronomic restrictions will inhibit the capacity of world agriculture to meet the increased demand.
Clearly, the accession scenario will be very different, depending on which school of thought proves to be correct. Certainly it would be a rather brave policy-maker who based policy on a purely mechanistic view of food supply and demand. I feel that some degree of caution should be built in. But as all speakers in the debate agreed, the European Commission can hardly be accused of bravery in the way in which it has approached the problem of accession. I think that the committee is excessively polite when it points out (paragraph 77) that:
"We recognise that making rapid progress within the institutions of the Community is difficult".
If it is difficult now with 15 members, what on earth will it be like in a Union of 25 members?
One central problem is touched on by the report but for understandable reasons is not fully grasped. How is all the talk of transition, adjustment, variable speed entry and the rest to be reconciled with the concept of the single market?
The different experience of the UK and Ireland after entry in 1973 is instructive. Your Lordships will remember that the UK had a seven-year transitional period after entry; but Ireland went straight to full CAP prices. The UK had a chance and the time to adjust. Ireland had a sudden almost uncontrollable burst of agricultural prosperity which was followed by a savage adjustment. It was classic boom and bust. In the UK and Ireland that all took place in the absence of a single market in agricultural products.
In the light of that, I find it hard to grasp the concept stated in paragraph 78 that:
"it is possible to envisage joint accession with full integration in individual policy areas being taken on a step by step basis or that accession on an individual basis might only take place once full integration in all sectors is guaranteed".
How can that be? Suppose that the Polish cereal regime is ready for full integration but the Hungarian cereal regime is not. What happens if cereals are to be traded in Europe through a single market? That applies to every commodity in every CEE country. I can offer no solution. But it seems to me that a country by country and product by product analysis has to be concluded in much greater depth than has so far been attempted if we are even to approach a solution.
I was interested to see that the Tangermann bond is once again tempting your Lordships' committee. It is beginning to resemble Banquo's ghost in our various discussions on agricultural policy. I am not sure if a ghost can be described as intellectually seductive but politically impossible, but I fear that that may be the judgment eventually applied to this particular policy nostrum.

1637
Let me repeat a point that I have made before. The UK should be particularly cautious before advocating the bond approach too enthusiastically. The first version of the bond produced by Professor Tangermann was intended to be explicitly "degressive"; in other words, larger farms, however defined, got less than smaller farms. It was modulation in another guise. That concept could easily be reintroduced and a moment's thought would show that it would not be to the advantage of the UK because of our superior farm structure.
Another central point concerns the structure of farming in the CEECs. My brief visits to seven of the 10 countries convinced me that the biggest obstacle to improving their agricultural productivity has been their self-induced obsession with land reform. One effect of the previous regime was to concentrate farmland occupation in very substantial blocks. Those could have been broken down into smaller but still efficient units of agricultural production while paying the original owners, who could be traced, a rent for their small part of the land. I hope that your Lordships will note the irony of a member of the Labour Party advocating a landlord and tenant system. Perhaps it is yet another aspect of New Labour.
The point was put extremely well in a recent article on Romanian agriculture which quoted the Romanian president:
"In place of the old state cooperatives, the government has passed a law to redistribute the land and return it to the original owners. More than 80% of the arable land is now farmed by private producers. But this transition has created some new problems".
It was pointed out by President Iliescu:
"For nine million hectares of land, we now have 6 million owners. It is very difficult to develop a modern, organised agricultural system with such small farms".
The article continues:
"The government is at present thought to be considering encouraging the creation of larger, private farms in order to achieve more efficient economies of scale … Mr. Tabara [the Agriculture Minister] blames the difficulties of breaking down the former state farms into such small units for the slide of agricultural production the country endured in 1991 and 1992".
The committee's report mentions directing aid towards restructuring and there are two points that occur to me. It would be ironic to say the least if substantial resources had to be invested—they would be resources from the taxpayers in the 15 original member states—in putting back together viable units from farms which had been deliberately broken up in the first reaction to the old regime.
Secondly, the report touches on fraud in paragraph 115. Aid for restructuring would have to be very closely controlled indeed if it were not to be dissipated through fraud and misdirection.
Perhaps I may pick up a few points from the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, pointed out—as does the report—that the target is accession by the year 2000. That seems to be a very ambitious objective which I should have thought very unlikely to be achieved, particularly if European monetary union is to begin in 1999, because of the complications of the overlap.
1638
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, quoted the suggestion by Professor Tangermann of the intervention safety net, which would be based on 75 per cent. of the moving average of world prices over five years. It is an ingenious idea but I emphasise that the definition of "world prices" will be absolutely crucial in such a calculation. As we all know, they can be defined in many different ways.
An important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, and other speakers, was the degree of hostility to CAP reform in certain powerful member states. We are aware of that. But if we couple that with the fact that 80 per cent. of the work of MAFF is concerned with matters European and all of that is subject to qualified majority voting, it means that CAP reform is likely to be a long, slow task and a policy as splendidly isolated as radicalism is not likely to be very productive.
There were many points made which I should have liked to cover, if time allowed. One is the whole question of import licences and quotas, which I know from my own experience is a sore point with all the CEECs I visited. Another is the whole question of integrated rural policy which the Commission appears to view as a kind of bucolic back to basics. Reference was made to the tremendous environmental and pollution problems in many of the CEECs and the woeful state of almost all of the food processing industries. Mention was made too of the problems in the monetary union—or not as the case may be. Professor Swinbank's written evidence is a tour de force but the reality is succinctly put by Professor Tangermann on page 149 when he says,
"I find it amazing that we are entering into probably the largest experiment in history in monetary and exchange rate policy without even knowing what institutional arrangements will be in existence to deal with it".
After spending almost all of my professional life having to deal with the lunacies of the CAP, I am surprised that the professor is surprised.
Time does not allow for further analysis of the excellent report. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his colleagues are to be congratulated on what I am sure will come to be regarded as a seminal analysis of this important subject. Their description of the CAP for the 21st century in paragraph 122 is an excellent summation of what we should all like to see. We must hope that the report and the discussions that it will engender help to bring that about.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Middleton and his colleagues on Sub-Committee D are to be warmly congratulated on the breadth and depth of the report. It is a great tribute to my noble friend's time as chairman that he should be leaving on this high note, and the quality of the report has been well reflected in the quality of our debate today.
We have heard many excellent speeches, but I was particularly struck by the speech of my noble friend Lord Reay. It was lucid, to the point and eminently "listenable to". I hope that we shall hear him on these

1639
subjects again. I am sure that in the course of what I hope will be a relatively short reply I shall miss many points made by noble Lords. I shall read Hansard and reply in writing to any points that I omit.
The principal problem that we experienced in replying to the report was finding sufficient variants on the word "agree". To our mind the case for reform is unanswerable. The present CAP creates major distortions in the EU economy; it holds back European agriculture by making it more difficult for industry to compete in world markets, as my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton said; and, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, it creates domestic inefficiencies. It is also expensive for consumers and taxpayers.
An interesting report was published last week by the Institute of Economic Affairs. It included a recalculation of the net cost to this country of the common agricultural policy. It came out with a figure of £6.4 billion per year. That is not something with which we disagree; it is very much within our range of estimates. I can understand how that net cost to consumers troubles my noble friend Lady Wilcox.
Without reform, the European Union will in due course be unable to meet even its existing commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade without building up new, unsaleable food surpluses. The European Commission, in its report on strategies for developing relations between the European Community and the associated countries in central and eastern Europe, concluded that the CAP in its present form is not an option for the future. That applies, even given all the uncertainties detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, such as the information that he obtained on his grand tour and the difficulties highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he mentioned the plight of the population generally in the CEE countries. We certainly do not want to find ourselves looking at a system which will increase food prices in the CEE countries for people who are already badly off. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, with his usual perspicacity, outlined the difficulties which would come from trying to combine the CAP, the single market, 10 new countries and umpteen different products. It is clear to him and to us that the devil is in the detail and I am delighted that it is also clear to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that the devil is not in the landlord.
The report of the European Commission reflected well on some of the messages that we have been pressing with the Commission. Like the committee, we are concerned that the momentum of that exercise should not be lost.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the associated area of the Europe agreements. The reality is that with agricultural goods market penetration so far has been poor. It is vital that those trade concessions are further liberalised. The European Union claims to be firmly committed to the concept of enlargement. But it must accept the practical consequences of such a commitment and send signals which encourage rather than frustrate. Having said that, I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Mottistone pricked that balloon for me when he
1640
mentioned the subject of soft fruit. I do not want to say too much on that; my noble friends north of the Border would blow me a raspberry if I did. But we are conscious that we need to make proposals here and hope that we can make proposals beneficial to both the European Union and its CEE suppliers.
I turn briefly from burying the CAP to praising it. The CAP had its roots in the need post-war to create stability and food security in Europe, and we should recognise that in that it has largely succeeded. I do not go along with my noble friend Lord Mottistone in blaming the entire thing on the French and "DG666" as it may be. Whatever we feel about the CAP, the need for the European Union to have some system of regulation for agricultural support is clear. All European countries are committed to supporting farming and rural life.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, the Germans have a strong emotional attachment to their pattern of small farms and to the communities and environments that it has produced. They are also strongly influenced by green issues. The French take enormous pride in their food industry, quite reasonably. They have a mission to produce and export. They want to see their countryside used and inhabited.
We ourselves are not immune from those emotions. As was mentioned, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, in reference to the Welsh, we support our hill farmers to such an extent that they are now totally dependent on that support and will be for the future. We do that to support their way of life and the countryside that they have created.
Perhaps compared with the French and the Germans we take what we believe to be a clearer view of the benefits of markets and the disbenefits of subsidies. We see the benefit that comes from separating agricultural support from environmental and social support and of having policies that are clearly directed to the ends one seeks to achieve. But we must recognise that with so much emotion, with so much at stake and with such diversity of interests we will always need the framework of the common agricultural policy to set the rules and to see fair play.
We want to achieve not the destruction of the CAP but its reform. We want to promote an efficient, prosperous and outward-looking agricultural industry able to operate in increasingly open world markets. To achieve that we are pressing for progressive reductions in EU support prices and the removal of production-linked payments which we hope will lead to the reduction of withdrawal and destruction of produce and the other deleterious aspects of intervention. That will in turn permit the removal of the supply controls; for example, the milk quota and set-aside, which are currently applied to keep CAP costs down. Those changes will benefit European Union agriculture, whether "EU" means a community of 15 or a larger community extending to the east.
My noble friend Lord Reay and the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, among others, correctly drew attention to the underlying mood in France and Germany. Those countries have enormous affection for

1641
the CAP and a determination to keep it as it is. I do not share the apocalyptic vision of the CAP of the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Just as King Canute's courtiers were tamed by the tide, so our partners in Europe will, by the force of events, come to realise that the policies that we are advocating are the right ones. We feel that, however long and tiresome that process may be, we shall come to the right answer in the end.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, surely the noble Lord has mixed his metaphor. Surely the tide is Europe. King Canute eventually had to withdraw. Surely that is the position which this country is up against. We are Canute and we are up against the tide.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We are Canute. We are the King who realises that he cannot withstand the tide and must take the necessary action of retreating up the beach to deal with it. The courtiers are our friends in Europe who are trying to assure us that Canute has only to tell the tide to turn and it will do so.
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Tewkesbury, a little comfort on one question. He mentioned reports that the proposed cut in arable area payment is about to be aborted. Cutting aid is not easy, but I am confident that when the Agriculture Council returns to the subject later this month Ministers will recognise the logic of the Commission's proposal. I hope that I do not have to swallow those words in a month's time.
We fully agree with the Committee that there are considerable advantages at home and in the World Trade Organisation for mapping out the required changes early. As the committee's report neatly and correctly notes, it is unfair to expect the central and eastern European countries to move towards a CAP which is effectively a moving target. As the noble Lord, Lord Brain, said, they are also faced with a block on inward investment and domestic entrepreneurship as a result of that uncertainty. We also feel that the Community will strengthen its hand in the next round of WTO negotiations on agriculture if it has a clear vision of its future market-led agricultural policy.
There are great benefits to the course which we are advocating, but there are of course potential disbenefits too. Taken by themselves, and if implemented too quickly, such reforms would be likely to result in unduly rapid changes in the countryside and a risk in some areas of a declining rural population. That would not be acceptable to us, let alone to our partners in Europe. A reformed CAP is therefore likely to require a period of transition, perhaps with some temporary financial assistance to help farmers to adjust to the new situation. It will certainly require a greater emphasis on social and environmental schemes.
I should like to make a number of points about such schemes. First, we are already familiar with them and within their limitations they appear to work well enough. As the committee says, a good measure of subsidiarity is required. Such schemes have to fit closely the needs and cultures of the particular communities that are to benefit from them. That point was highlighted by
1642
the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, when he mentioned rural shop rate relief. Clearly, that applies in this country and would be totally inappropriate as a European policy. However, as I pointed out earlier, a strong Community-level structure will be required to ensure that aid is properly targeted, minimising abuses and market distortions. My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam mentioned organic farming. That is an area in which we would hope that such policies would bite. We would support them. Indeed, we are lending such support at the moment.
There may be some scope for a change of name as the common agricultural policy moves in that direction. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, might prefer it to be the "Common Holistic Environmental and Agricultural Policy"—or CHEAP, which I do not think that it would be. Others might prefer it to become the "Common Agricultural Rural Policy", which would enable my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch to "carp" at it. I am sure that the Liberal Democrat Party would like to go further and make it the "Common Rural and Agricultural Policy", but I shall leave that matter to the Liberal Democrats.
The committee concludes that,
"The Commission and the Agriculture Council must act with the utmost urgency to begin the process of reform".
I think that we can say that the debate has already begun. European Union Agriculture Ministers are already debating the future of the beef regime and, with it, the balance of support between the beef and arable sectors. The Commission has promised proposals on the future of the milk sector during 1997. We know that the Commission is actively pursuing the mandate given to it by EU heads of state at the Madrid European Council to extend analysis of the likely impact of enlargement on the agricultural sector.
Progress has been painfully slow and late and may well continue to be that. There is a great deal to be done. The noble Lords, Lord Gallacher and Lord Carter, mentioned the agrimonetary review and EMU as having an effect in that area. We shall need to be steadfast in our determination to press the case for reform. We shall need to listen carefully and sympathetically to the ambitions which our European partners have for the CAP. We shall need to present proposals which are well researched, logical and lucidly expressed. In other words, we shall need to follow the example set by Sub-Committee D.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am touched by the kind words that have been said. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for his kind words and for the manner in which the Government received our report. After listening to my noble friend, I am confident that the UK Government will continue to give the lead among member states in the drive towards the enlargement of the European Union and the reform of the CAP, which is a prerequisite.
Our report concentrated on CAP reform as one of the chief obstacles in the way of the accession of the CEE countries. Of course, there is much preparatory work to

1643
be done in other areas of policy, not least the reshaping of the institutions. However, our brief was to study the co-ordination of the agricultural policies and in particular the Commission's strategy document.
I believe that the Commission is thinking along the right lines. Manifestly, it is anxious about the response from the Council of Ministers to any proposals which are radical enough to be effective. In that endeavour Mr. Fischler and his staff will need all the help that they can get. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Oil and Gas Installation Decommissioning: Select Committee Report
6.7 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley Lord Craig of Radley rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Installations (Third Report, HL Paper 46).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying that I am sorry to learn that the Minister responsible for energy matters is indisposed. I wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, a speedy recovery and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in his place.
The inquiry which was originally set up just over a year ago proved to be particularly timely. There have been significant changes affecting the exploitation of our oil and gas reserves around the United Kingdom since the subject was considered by the Select Committee on Energy in another place in 1991. In May 1995, a couple of months before our call for evidence was issued, the Department of Trade and Industry circulated for comment a consultative document entitled Abandonment of Offshore Installations and Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1987. That was shortly followed by the highly publicised Greenpeace campaign against the sinking of the "Brent Spar", a floating oil tank and never a fixed installation, in the deep waters of the Rockall Trough off north-west Scotland. Our inquiry was not a post-mortem into the "Brent Spar" episode, although inevitably there were useful lessons to be drawn from the difficulties which arose.
Before I comment on our findings and recommendations, I should like to put on record my heartfelt gratitude to all members of the committee who gave me and our clerk, Mr. Vaughan, such marvellous encouragement and backing. We were very fortunate to have the experience and knowledge of our two co-opted members, the noble Lords, Lord Lewis of Newnham and Lord Tombs, and of our specialist adviser, Sir Anthony Laughton, Fellow of the Royal Society and a world renowned oceanographic consultant. Dr. Bradshaw, the committee's special assistant, also made a most valuable contribution. Both Mr. Vaughan and I were on our maiden run as committee clerk and chairman. I am most
1644
grateful for the forbearance and unfailing support that we received. Mr. Vaughan passed his overture performance with flying colours.
Our thanks are of course due to the many witnesses who responded both verbally and in writing to our calls for evidence. Some committee members visited the "Beryl Alpha" platform owned by Mobil North Sea Limited. We were most ably looked after by our hosts, who included the Beryl area manager, Mr. Neil Duffin, and Mr. Andrew Sneddon, their senior staff environmental engineer. We are most grateful for all the trouble taken to make this very well organised visit so worth while and informative.
As an aside, "Beryl Alpha" is a 90-minute helicopter ride from Aberdeen. It stands in 120 metres of water and weighs in excess of 520,000 tonnes. It is far from being the largest North Sea structure. It is mainly fabricated in concrete and when decommissioned will almost certainly have to be left permanently in place, apart from the topsides which will be lifted off and brought to shore for disposal.
The scale of development of the North Sea's oil and gas reserves is now massive. There are approximately 440 rigs in the entire North Sea, half of which lie in the UK sector. Many of these lie in the relatively shallow waters of the southern North Sea, and modern floating cranes and barges are man enough to lift and remove these shallow sea structures to shore for dismantling when they have been made redundant. The problems we face lie with the 50 or so massive deep water installations in the hostile environment of the northern North Sea, together with the large amount of pipelines (around 10,000 kilometres in the UK sector alone) and the oil and mud pile cuttings which are a necessary concomitant of oil drilling.
Our report describes the various types of structure and the ways in which they could be dealt with on decommissioning. As noble Lords will have noted, there is much in our report which has been welcomed and supported by the Government in their formal response. They will have been able to take account of our recommendations in their guidance notes for oil and gas installations following the consultation process they initiated some 18 moths ago. I hope that in her response to the debate the Minister will be able to bring us up to date with this document.
One of our principal recommendations, after careful thought and discussion, was that it would not be right to rule out of consideration the possibility of sea disposal of a structure. Would it not be perverse to rule out sea disposal before considering any of the factors for an installation which has been in the sea for half a century or more? Indeed, some of the very heavy gravity structures like "Beryl Alpha", which rely on their massive weight and grouting to the seabed to hold them steady during their working lives, will never be removed.
The arguments we heard for and against disposal at sea and our conclusions are fully set out in our report, so I shall not rehearse them now in detail. The key point is that, whatever option is selected, it should be based on an open and transparent selection of the best practicable

1645
environmental option, or BPEO for short. This concept, which was devised by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1988, states that all possible options should be investigated and compared; all factors should be considered in comparing the merits of these options; the whole process should be conducted openly and incorporate consultation with interested parties; and the process should be flexible and take account of past experience. Wise words, and the Government deserve full support in upholding this line of approach.
Some witnesses suggested that the case-by-case approach would not take account of any cumulative effects of the decommissioning process. However, because there is such a variety of rigs and installations, and because decommissioning operations for large structures in the difficult waters of the North Sea are still in their infancy, we recommended that the case-by-case approach proposed in the IMO guidelines of 1989 and the Government's own draft guidelines should be maintained. Perhaps for the avoidance of doubt the phrase "case-by-case" should, I submit, not exclude considering the cumulative effects of disposal operations.
We further recommended that the Government should seek to restore international agreement and extend international guidelines to cover pipelines and wastes arising from drilling operations based on a BPEO approach. Without international consensus it would be very difficult for the oil and gas industry to make long-term plans or to estimate the costs of decommissioning—clearly not a satisfactory prospect for them. I shall be interested to learn what progress has been made in this important area.
Let me now turn to two points where the committee and the Government do not appear to be quite of the same mind. The first concerns the committee's recommendation that for any deep sea disposals planned in the future the Government should define the criteria for an ecologically acceptable area in the UK waters within which, subject to BPEO analysis, they will allow the sinking of installations. We believe that the expense of identifying several different sites and the difficulties for government (and hence the operators) of getting widespread public and international acceptance of a number of sites point towards trying to find and select a single suitable one. Moreover, the ongoing cost of the necessary monitoring of disposals would be greater if more than one site were to be used.
In their response the Government acknowledge the possibility of reusing a selected site, but then argue that it would not be sensible now to define one ecologically acceptable area for the disposal of installations and rule out the possibility that other sites could be more suitable in a particular case. In the light of the Natural Environment Research Council's report commissioned by the Government and chaired by Professor John Shepherd, I hope that the Government will think again about their attitude to our recommendation. The Shepherd group found that:
"the global impacts on the environment and on human health of the deep sea disposal of a structure such as Brent Spar would be very small, roughly equivalent to the impacts associated with the wreckage of a fairly large ship".
In the light of that finding, I do not think that our approach is totally incompatible with the Government's present thinking. Our recommendation does not preclude an exception being made if a particular installation had to be disposed of elsewhere; for example, if for technical or other reasons it would be best to topple it on site. However, an extreme example does not mean that the majority of those selected for sea disposal should not be sunk in one location. Any step which removes uncertainty and extra cost must surely be considered favourably.
My second point refers to the Government's rejection of our recommendation that in situ remains of an installation should be marked by a light or buoy. I acknowledge the Government's point that the function of a buoy is to mark a hazard to navigation and that submerged remains of decommissioned structures will be marked on charts. However, our recommendation came from evidence which we received from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It pointed out that there is a real hazard to its members who may be capsized if their nets are snagged in underwater remains, even those at the legally allowed 55 metres or more below sea level. I hope that the purest argument about the navigational purpose of a buoy will not be allowed to override the fishermen's real concerns about hazards to their safety.
Finally, although we did not go so far as to make it a formal recommendation, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the problem of long-term liability for remains. When we asked Mr. Eggar, the then energy Minister, about that he stated in evidence that after consultation with the oil industry the Government had come to the conclusion that the liability should be left with the industry. Of course, one can understand government being uneasy about taking that on, but I believe that there is a real issue here which must be gripped some time in the future.
It is not too soon, as we start to see rigs being decommissioned and face the prospect of some of these structures remaining in situ for perhaps hundreds of years, to be giving the matter more active thought. Nor should we overlook the 10,000 kilometres of pipelines lying on the seabed and the large piles of drill cuttings and other wastes. Those could become sources of longterm pollution, perhaps ever more troublesome than the abandoned structures themselves.
Today's industry is financially sound and strong, but will its successors in title be equally well founded? Ultimately the risks inherent in abandoned facilities may affect the health and safety of human lives. Government will not be able to avoid shouldering some responsibility for safeguarding international safety at sea. Requiring today's owners to pay government a sufficient sum to insure against a potential liability some time in the future would seem to be a prudent course of action.
In commending the report to the House, I wish to conclude by underlining our support for the concept of the best practicable environmental option when considering and approving the choice for disposal of installations. Your Lordships should remember the importance of the key word "practicable" in this

1647
concept. Only by that broadly based approach will the other factors—technical, engineering, human safety and, of course, cost—be properly weighed in the balance when reaching a decision on disposal.
At the end of the day there will be a measure of human judgment in that decision. Risks, where they are quantifiable, can and should be measured, but some cannot and those with the greatest experience and scientific and engineering knowledge of the structures and their hostile environment are those whose advice should be given greatest weight by Ministers who have to approve and, if necessary, defend their decisions in public. I beg to move.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his clear and comprehensive introduction of the report and its main conclusions. I shall make some observations which I hope will be helpful because, in general, I agree with what is in the report.
Offshore oil and gas still form a comparatively new industry for the United Kingdom. The oil was first discovered only 26 years ago in 1970 and the first oil was extracted from the seabed only 21 years ago in 1975. I venture to make my modest contribution to the debate because I was closely involved in those early days; I was Secretary of State for Scotland from 1970 to 1974 when oil was discovered in the North Sea. The Department of Energy was not created until 1974. Later I served in a non-executive capacity with a major oil company which has been the operator of one of the largest fields in the North Sea. I retired some time ago but I still follow offshore activity with close interest.
The structures which pose the difficult problems are the platforms. At times they are referred to as "rigs" but that can be confusing. Drilling rigs used for exploration are mobile and move around in their work. They are not rooted to the seabed when their working lives come to an end. The top sides of platforms, consisting of the operating and living quarters supported above the surface, should be removable when no longer needed without great difficulty. However, the jackets, which in the North Sea are mostly steel structures but a few are of concrete, are another matter. Some in the deeper water are gigantic and their eventual fate will need very careful consideration.
The core legislation in this country was the Petroleum Act 1987. Some of us took part in the debates in this House during the Bill's passage. At that time I was chairman of the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea, a non-governmental organisation with international membership. The principle enacted in that Act was that each redundant structure should be considered as a separate case, as recommended by the International Maritime Organisation. Later guidelines from the British Government have confirmed, elaborated and clarified procedures. Guidelines have also been formulated on water clearance to be left above partially removed installations. For reasons of safety and navigation, clearance of at least 55 metres of water
1648
column must be left on the United Kingdom shelf. The smaller platforms in shallow water are likely to be removed completely. I understand that in the North Sea about 10 have already been taken out of commission in that way.
We should remember that oil provinces discovered offshore before those in the North Sea—for example, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela—were in relatively shallow waters. When their first platforms became redundant they could be removed completely without great difficulty. In contrast, the most productive fields in the North Sea were in much deeper water and the latest technology from American and international companies, and advances in that technology in the early 1970s, were required to build the giant platforms which were needed.
The fields now being developed west of Shetland are in even deeper water. Fixed platforms of even greater size to serve them are not practicable. Other sophisticated techniques are being devised; for example, special vessels on the surface controlling operations and the remote control of installations on the seabed. Those systems are less likely to raise serious problems on abandonment of the fields and that augurs well for the future. It is also consonant with the IMO's recommended standard that from 1998 onwards all new installations should be demonstrably removable when they are redundant.
The subject of decommissioning and disposal became front-page news last summer with a chapter of the unfinished saga of "Brent Spar". Unfortunately, the impression was given by the media, unintentionally, that that was an example and a precedent for the disposal of platforms. "Brent Spar" was referred to continually as a platform, which it is not; nor is it a rig; it is a storage buoy, floating and moored to the seabed. It does not contain drilling or other equipment for operating a field. Its purpose was to store oil for loading into visiting tankers.
Furthermore, there have been very few of those floating storage buoys on the British Continental Shelf. I believe that there has been only one other. However, platforms, of which there are about 150 on the British shelf, are standing on the seabed, many pile-driven into it, although some recent ones have a flexible tension-leg system. Their main functions are different and the storage of oil—the whole purpose of "Brent Spar"—is not one of them.
The disposal of "Brent Spar" raises special considerations which do not necessarily apply to platforms; for example, in relation to residues in its tanks.
Another mistake made widely last year was in reporting that the "Brent Spar" was to be dumped in the North Sea. On hearing one such statement in a BBC broadcast I telephoned immediately to point out the error. An apology was made and I was told that the mistake would be corrected in future bulletins. I find it sad that in a maritime nation, which we are, the difference between sinking an object to a depth of a mile or so in the deep Atlantic Ocean, far from land, as was the plan, and discarding it in some 400 feet of water in the North Sea is not sharply apparent.

1649
The saga is unfinished. "Brent Spar" is still lying in a fjord, the Norwegian Government having extended the period originally agreed to July 1997. Shell has received 30 outline plans for its disposal from 19 contractors and consortia. Those plans include both sinking in the deep ocean and dismantling on or beside land. The second option entails many additional health and safety factors.
As paragraphs 3.41 and 3.42 record, in decommissioning, attention must be given to drill cuttings, which are likely to include oil and chemicals. They are normally produced by drilling processes and collect in piles or layers at the feet of platforms. They could be sources of contamination if not neutralised. They could be stirred up and spread when the bases of platforms are being uprooted for removal.
I should like to make a few comments on the effects on sea fisheries. While platforms are in place, there are no-go zones around them, usually of a radius of 500 metres. Fishermen's organisations are greatly concerned about the effects of decommissioning on their fishing operations, not only from the stumps or abandoned lower sections of structures but also from the chemicals, oily cuttings and pipelines. I believe that the last two can he neutralised; for example, by removal or covering over. On structural remains left on the bottom and well below the surface there will inevitably be controversy, although they are likely to be authorised only in deep water.
I shall try to convey what I believe is the attitude of fishermen's organisations. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation, to which the noble and gallant Lord referred, represents about half the tonnage of all British fishermen and is certainly a very influential body which I believe normally takes sensible views.
It has been pointed out that the remains of a platform can form an artificial reef which can encourage the multiplication of fish. That has been effective in other parts of the world in shallow waters. However, I suggest that that is appropriate only in certain areas of our Continental Shelf.
The reason for that is that an important part of our fishing fleet—the boats that trawl for demersal fish on or near the seabed—would find the truncated structures to be additional obstacles. There are already wrecks of ships forming obstacles whose locations fishermen must know and take into account. Those fishermen would not welcome more obstacles on the seabed likely to damage their fishing gear on what had been productive fishing grounds in the past. In other words, avoiding obstruction to their normal fishing methods is as important to them as increasing the numbers of fish by creating artificial reefs.
I am speaking mainly of the larger boats—those which form the substantial core of our fishing fleet and make voyages of several days, often travelling far from their home ports. Those not engaged in the specialised pelagic fisheries of herring and mackerel are bringing to market the white fish which swim near the seabed; for example, cod, haddock, whiting and flat fish. Their fishing operations involve movement. Their engines propel them so that their trawls or seine nets are extended and pulled behind them. They are looking for
1650
straight fairways where they can have a clear run of 1,000 metres or more without impediment. That is very different from rod and line fishing from a seaside pier.
I have kept in touch with fishermens' organisations for many years on this and other subjects. Perhaps it is fitting for me to speak on these fishery considerations today. I established a body bringing together fishermen's organisations and the offshore oil industry and others expressly to examine jointly the swift course of developments in the North Sea when oil was first being discovered way back in the early 1970s and when I was the Secretary of State concerned. I believe that, with full consultation, acceptable solutions can be found to suit different parts of the sea and the seabed. That can be done within the policy of authorising decommissioning separately for each individual case, a policy which I continue to support.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Gregson: My Lords, I too thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his very able chairmanship of the sub-committee which produced this excellent report. I also thank the clerk to the committee for the determined way in which he kept us to the subject.
What intrigued me most about the inquiry was that when we started it, the proposed disposal of the "Brent Spar" was a recent event and the considerable antagonism associated with it was still in recent memory. As the inquiry proceeded, the calm and detailed examination in the committee room showed slowly but surely that the protagonists were not so far apart compared with the rhetoric which was generated at the time of the "Brent Spar" problem.
In giving evidence, Greenpeace accepted that concrete structures could be disposed of at sea since they in fact mimic the materials of the seabed but they need to be thoroughly decontaminated before disposal. As that concrete is half the mass of the rigs in the deeper waters, it makes a very large inroad into the problem of disposal. However, it thought that the remaining steel parts and steel rigs should be brought ashore and recycled for scrap.
Later in the inquiry the offshore operators fully accepted the need for decontamination, and so we are really concerned only with the disposal of the deep water steel rigs and components.
Personally, I can see no ecological problem with disposing of steel in the deep sea since many billions of tonnes are already under the sea as a result of two world wars and many thousands of shipwrecks, with no apparent damaging effect. In fact, steel is protected in deep water because oxygen is excluded. A fine example of that is the images which were generated by Bob Ballard when he investigated the "Titanic" and several other vessels in the sea. In fact in many cases the structures were almost as good as when they were launched, probably better.
In fact, only last week, in the journal Nature, four international papers were published which proposed the introduction of iron into the world's oceans in order to

1651
encourage the growth of plant life, which would increase the food potential and absorb carbon on a massive scale to counter the greenhouse effect.
On the other hand, there is a growing shortage of steel scrap due to the changes in the manufacturing process of steel production—the so-called "minimill process" which is rapidly spreading throughout the developing world. Those minimills are fed entirely from scrap and avoid the costly and large-scale smelting of iron from iron ore. There is, therefore, a strong case for recycling the steel from the off-shore rigs. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, several of the shallow rigs have already been brought ashore and recycled.
Unfortunately I am highly suspicious of the £3,000 to £4,000 per tonne quoted by the off-shore operators for bringing scrap from these deep-water rigs ashore to be recycled, especially when one considers that a scheme is being proposed to salvage some of the many U-boats scuttled in deep waters after the Second World War, in order to recover the scrap for recycling.
I believe that much more work needs to be done to determine the feasibility of recycling steel from the deep water rigs. It is apparent to me that, given a reasonable degree of compromise, the problems of disposal of off-shore rigs can be solved. I believe that this report points the way.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, I was a member of the Select Committee which undertook the inquiry. I join the noble Lord in expressing gratitude to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for the way in which he chaired the committee and especially for the way in which he introduced the report today. As my voice is rather suspect tonight, I can be very brief because the noble and gallant Lord has said really all that needs to be said.
I should like to return to a very fundamental issue and it is one which informs the whole debate as to how one disposes of installations, be they rigs, platforms or whatever. First, when we come to dispose of such installations, should we always take the best practicable environmental option (BPEO)? Secondly, if we determine that BPEO is appropriate, then how, on a case-by-case basis, do we set about determining what is BPEO?
The first and fundamental issue arises from society's legitimate right to say that some areas of the globe are no-go areas. Whatever the assessment of risk and the assessment of environmental damage of alternative actions, we may decide, despite the fact that this might be the best practical environmental option, that: "We, society, in our wisdom determine that you shall not dispose of rubbish or no longer-needed installations in those areas". I suppose, when thinking where such areas could conceivably exist, one might think in terms of those cultures which use such areas for burial or they could be areas where sacred graves are located. Although there may well be sensible reasons for burying
1652
waste in those areas because they are deemed by society to have a value which transcends the assessment of an economist, they become no-go areas.
I suppose that it is therefore conceivable that society might determine that the bottom of the ocean—or, indeed, all oceans—should become such areas. Indeed, during the kind of fiasco surrounding the debate on the "Brent Spar" there were indeed just such proponents. Presumably such proponents said that on no account should we ever again dump our waste at sea. I assume that they would have taken a more extreme view than Greenpeace took in evidence to us. They would have said that even those concrete installations could no longer be dumped at sea.
Of course we see a movement in that direction, although it has to be admitted that it is nothing like as fundamental. In a few years' time we shall no longer be allowed to dump our sewage at sea. Some people will still believe that the best practical environmental option would be to do just that. Indeed, those who have read the report on soils of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recognise the great damage that will be caused by critical loads unless we manage to take the metal out of sewage. Nevertheless, we have in that instance, and for reasons which I still find difficult to understand, taken the view that sewage can no longer be dumped at sea.
However, I do not believe that society is anywhere near ready yet to contemplate the dire consequences of saying that no waste of any kind should ever again be dumped at sea. The implications for the exploitation of the marine resource would be quite horrendous. It would follow from that that many of the exercises that man undertakes when securing his livelihood would simply become impossible. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that this fundamental approach—although people are quite entitled to debate it—is not one that society is anywhere near to sanctioning. It is clearly right and correct, as the report recommends, and as Professor Shepherd's committee recommended, that BPEO should be determined.
Then we have the issue as to how precisely one determines what is BPEO. Everyone must recognise that the exercise undertaken by the owners of "Brent Spar" was a fairly poor example of the implementation of BPEO. I shall not go into that because our report was not about "Brent Spar" although, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, reminded us, clearly it was bound to be influenced by that episode. The report by Professor Shepherd which was undertaken on behalf of the Natural Environment Research Council was specifically about the "Brent Spar". I believe that that report makes it quite clear in what respects BPEO was defective.
The clear essential to be undertaken by physical scientists, engineers, economists and lawyers and others who undertake BPEO is to agree first of all a methodology on risk assessment. Unless there is an agreed methodology, there will always be arguments about the basis upon which the assessment is to be made. Then, on the basis of that agreed methodology, one needs to undertake a full assessment of the

1653
problems, the risks and the environmental hazards, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, reminded us, to such interests as fishing and others. All those interests must have the opportunity to check the data and engage in the debate. When the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution defined the concept of BPEO it was clear that there simply must be full transparency, as the noble and gallant Lord reminded us. Without it, one cannot undertake a proper, clear review and, without it, people cannot possibly be expected to have any confidence in the views of "experts". Everyone must feel that he is entitled to contribute to the debate.
The only area where anyone could put a knife between our report and that of Professor Shepherd is in our wording of "case-by-case" as opposed to "cumulative". I believe that the noble and gallant Lord dealt with the matter quite clearly. There is nothing in undertaking a case-by-case appraisal which suggests that one cannot also bear in mind the cumulative effects. Indeed, the Government's response to our report makes that very clear. I believe that it is perfectly appropriate for the cumulative effects to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
What then for the future? Clearly, before any new installations are put into the North Sea or elsewhere, we expect a cradle to grave environmental appraisal to be essential. No doubt there will be far greater transparency, openness and a shared consensus on the methodology involved in the future. However, I suspect that there will still be a role for confrontation. After all, it is perfectly open for members of society—perhaps some people would call them extremists, whereas others would say that they were ahead of their time—to wish to change people's attitudes to the basic principles under which we normally operate and behave.
There will be some people who believe passionately that we have a duty not to dump our rubbish and especially not to do so at sea. I hope that I may declare that I do not count myself as one of those people. I believe that there are still very good reasons, not least when considering the impact on human health and safety and, indeed, the impact on the terrestrial environment, why we should allow the options still to remain. However, I accept that confrontation will remain with us if we wish to allow people to put forward their point of view that, one day, we should no longer be allowed to dump our waste at sea.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who chaired the sub-committee. He kept us all in order which is not easy in a committee containing so many varied talents. It was easy to branch out into interesting but irrelevant matters. However, our chairman, with his charm and firmness, brought us back to the main purpose of the inquiry. The report, its form and its relevance to the matters under consideration, owe much to his excellent chairmanship.
I was interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, just said about dumping waste at sea. Many years ago I was chairman of the sub-committee of the European Communities Committee which studied the
1654
question of dumping waste at sea. We came to the conclusion to which the noble Earl has referred; namely, that that was a perfectly proper course to adopt. It has since been found by others not to be an acceptable course to adopt, and accordingly it is not now adopted. Therefore when we considered the matter we are presently discussing I felt a certain familiarity with some of the problems that we examined. I find the matter extremely interesting.
Many years ago, as a member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, while undertaking a study of marine oil pollution I visited the Forties Field and the oil rigs. I, and I believe also my colleagues, were greatly impressed by the absence of pollution from operations and the abundance of fish sheltering there. In the course of this present inquiry, we discussed the importance and difficulty of dealing with drill cuttings. That raised for me new concerns. We were advised that cutting piles was likely to be the major source of hydrocarbon release from decommissioning operations. Apparently over time natural processes form a relatively inert top layer or cap over cutting piles. Therefore the process of removing, dismantling or toppling the main structure might break the cap and release hydrocarbons and other chemicals. Indeed, even the removal of the jacket above the pile might cause changes in currents and result in such releases. If the structure is removed, piles of some 100 feet in height will not only be a peril to fishermen and gear, but will result in extensive pollution if they are disturbed by fishing operations.
These are not issues which arose—and they could not arise—in connection with "Brent Spar" about which there was so much publicity. I believe there is little public knowledge about those matters yet they are clearly of the first importance in the whole subject of decommissioning, not least because the process of the removal could be held up until problems of dealing with drill cuttings have been resolved. We have made recommendations about research. In their response the Government have stated that they have commissioned research into the subject. That stemmed from an international meeting in 1995. I should be interested to hear the Minister tell us what progress has been made in the research which has been commissioned, and when it is expected that an outcome of the research will be available. I should also be interested to hear whether the Government are pressing for an early reply. For the reasons I have mentioned, I believe these are matters of great importance.
I turn for a moment to current licensing arrangements, on which we took certain evidence. We were told by many witnesses that "cradle to grave" design procedures were now well established. The Minister, Tim Eggar, told us,
"We probably ought from the very beginning of looking at the installation of these platforms, to have asked the issue of decommissioning to be designed in, but that has been done for the last decade or so".
I should be grateful if the Minister could help us on that matter because I believe there is some confusion on this important point.

1655
As has been said, the International Maritime Organisation guidelines require that after 1st January 1998 no structure should be installed unless the design and construction are such that entire removal upon abandonment or permanent disuse would be feasible. That guideline falls far short of requiring any particular course of action to be taken, or indeed any action at all. Yet public expectation in the light of that guideline must be that the structure will be removed. The comment of the Minister which I have quoted reinforces that assumption.
It might be thought that the precise steps to be taken at the end of the structure's life would be prescribed in the original licence to install; but in further evidence the Minister seemed to feel that this was inappropriate as the long timescales indicated the need for flexibility as to the steps to be taken. Accordingly, determination of what is to happen about decommissioning would only be decided when this was to take place. I accept that this is a dilemma; but it seems to me that there would be much advantage in incorporating into the original licence full programmes for decommissioning which would be subject to public debate, according to BPEO as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and based upon the then known factors. There should be liberty for either the company or the Government, subject again to public debate, to consider proposals for amendment or radical change if circumstances at the relevant time were substantially different.
For all the good intentions of the companies and the Government, public confidence in each is at a low ebb particularly in relation to assessment of risk. It is risk which lies at the root of the need to decommission in an acceptable manner. A recent report issued by POST (the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology) quotes University of East Anglia research which indicates that few people trust advice on environmental risks given either by government (the figure is 7.6 per cent.) or companies (the figure is 12.8 per cent.). Therefore I believe that public acceptance of further exploration and production can only be envisaged if there is public involvement as to decommissioning. Promises by government and companies will be of little use. The positive response of the Government to the report is encouraging but there remains much to be done. I very much hope that the Minister will say what the Government will do—and I wish this most of all—and when.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I add my thanks to the chairman of the committee which produced this report. The noble and gallant Lord not only kept us in order but he also—this has not yet been commented upon—worked us to a strict timescale as he was under pressure to complete the report with limited time available in which to do so. It was hard work to keep us all in order. I also wish to place on record my thanks for the co-operation of the oil industry at large in this inquiry. The industry was most helpful to us all.
1656
When I look outside this building I see a river that is lined with stone, concrete, brick and reinforced concrete from here almost down to its mouth. I can think of endless coastal towns protected by reinforced concrete sea walls. None of that causes any particular problems in the environmental field. Yet suddenly last summer a proposal to drop a large reinforced concrete structure into the deep ocean became a matter of high public controversy. One has to ask how this can be. How could what was thought to be a fairly straightforward, non-controversial matter suddenly expand into a major row? Fifteen months later, "Brent Spar" is still moored in a Norwegian fjord and time is running out. Of course that is a slight over-simplification of the story. Not least of the important issues in the report is how we handle matters in the future so that that kind of problem does not arise again. "Brent Spar" may not be a platform, but it is a precedent. It is a forerunner of 20, 30 or 40 years during which similar situations can arise.
For me, an important aspect of the report is not simply the environmental issue of how to dispose of those platforms. It is how to set about avoiding such controversies in the future; it is about public information and public knowledge; it is about bringing together the different approach which comes from commercial interest and public interest. In that instance the problems were exacerbated by an unfortunate inaccuracy in a statement by Greenpeace which was inevitably played up by some of the less responsible elements of the media. However, by the time that crisis arose it was too late to try to counter the argument with the real facts because public attitudes, which were conditioned by apathy initially, had not been prepared in any way. We have already heard mention of the suspicion of the public about government statements. In cases like the "Brent Spar" it is necessary to apply what I call a slow process of education. In that instance the real damage is to Greenpeace's future credibility; but that is a separate issue.
We need to be aware of the international aspect of environmental matters and green politics. In the final analysis what brought "Brent Spar" back to that Norwegian fjord was not the activity and action in this country but the consumer action in Germany and, more importantly, the rising tide of violence occurring there. We need to be aware that we are not discussing simply a national problem in all these issues but an international problem, and one with which we have to deal.
The best practical environmental option—it is a system which I support—in the case of "Brent Spar" was not known in detail to the public. The facts were not secret but they were unrevealed and had not been drawn to the public's attention so that again it was possible to play on public fears and to produce an unreasonable reaction. Indeed, one factor that arises is that public acceptability has to be considered as part of the best practical environmental option. The other lesson that we have to learn—it is not exclusively in this field that we have to learn it—is to trust the public with accurate facts and information. If we are not prepared to do so, we have to accept that this kind of crisis will

1657
arise from time to time. This will be a long-running saga over a considerable period in the future. We must expect similar incidents to arise as time passes.
Another important aspect of the report is the need for the developing co-operation that already exists as regards future pipelines. We are discussing clearing platforms and the seabed. That is perfectly reasonable. However, those pipelines have a very different life and future from platforms. Platforms are established to deal initially with specific fields. As drilling technology develops, so the capacity of those fields develops. The platforms will continue in production for rather longer than was initially envisaged when they were built. Pipelines were built and installed to serve those platforms. But once they are installed they can then serve other fields which are developed subsequently.
The pattern of development has been to develop first the large fields which will stand the high investment required. That includes investment in the pipelines. However, on the back of that development smaller fields which are otherwise uneconomic to develop will be brought on-stream. We need to have particular regard to the fact that economic circumstances may well change over time. Small fields and small pockets of oil under the sea which are uneconomic at present are likely to become economic at some point in the future. If in our keenness to clear structures away we clear pipelines out of the way, we shall almost certainly guarantee that there will be no access to many of those small fields which are uneconomic at present. If the pipelines are preserved, much of the infrastructure necessary to make it possible to develop those fields will already be in place. We need a different approach on the issue of pipelines from the pure issue of disposal of rigs.
I shall revert to "Brent Spar" to this extent. This crisis and—if the noble and gallant chairman will forgive my saying so—this report arose out of the controversy that was generated by public ignorance; and that is where I wish to conclude. The best practical environmental option must include public acceptability. But public acceptability and public opinion are valid only if the public are well and accurately informed. Whatever else we do, we must take care to ensure that that takes place in future.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may add my compliments to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on this study. As he told us, this is the first report that he has led as chairman and I must say that it was a delight to work under his leadership. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it is also to his credit that this is one of the quickest reports that the committee has ever produced. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has given noble Lords the background to the report, and so there is no need for me to cover that ground again.
However, it will be interesting to look at some of the events that have happened since. Some time has passed since we reported in February and, as other noble Lords have said, in May an expert group from the National Environmental Research Council also reported on the decommissioning of "Brent Spar". It confirmed many of
1658
our conclusions. It agreed with us that disposal at sea was an option, and that the global impact would be minimal. The group also agreed that there should be a case by case consideration of the disposal and that the cumulative effect must also be taken into account. Most importantly, it also agreed that the best practical environmental option procedure should be followed in decommissioning operations.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that one of the most important recommendations in our report concerns the consultation procedures in our paragraphs 4.10 to 4.13. In those paragraphs we are anxious that the best practical environmental option procedure should be open and transparent. Other noble Lords have made that point and so did the NERC report. We emphasise that the assessments should be open to peer review and that each case should be judged on its individual merits. Any proposed decommissioning should be announced in advance, and submissions from interested parties should be welcomed. It is important that the consultation should not simply be a public relations exercise; it should be capable of altering the identified best practical environmental option.
What was our reason for this? Our reason was the belief that the row over the disposal of the "Brent Spar" was partly caused by the secrecy surrounding the way the BPEO decision was taken. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the secrecy was interpreted by the public as not taking their concerns into account. Unfortunately, the DTI added to the aura of secrecy by considering its discussions with Shell as "commercial in confidence". In reality, it was largely a matter of risk assessment. The DTI approved of sea disposal as the BPEO and then compounded the public's suspicion by attacking Shell for changing its mind at the last minute. I seem to remember government Ministers referring to Shell's directors as "wimps" for changing their minds.
The Government must realise that an important part of a BPEO decision is public acceptability, because people do not just automatically believe the Government any more. Politicians are losing out to consumers, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, told us. Shell understood this and, perhaps a little late, acted accordingly. The Government did not and were suitably made to look incompetent.
A further reason for openness is contained in the recent report by the consultants, Wood Mackenzie. They point out that the taxpayer will carry much of the cost of disposal and decommissioning by virtue of tax allowances. Wood Mackenzie estimate that in some fields this could amount to as much as 70 per cent. of the abandonment expenses. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, told us about the number of installations to be decommissioned, so the amounts of money involved are huge. Wood Mackenzie estimate that total decommissioning could cost about £8.7 billion. At a time when government tax revenues are seriously below estimate, this is an important consideration.

1659
However, I am sure that the Government have learnt their lesson and that the Minister can reassure us on this. In their observations on our report in paragraph 2 they state:
"Events surrounding the disposal of the Brent Spar oil storage installation have emphasised the need for a clear, public understanding of the issues involved and the way in which decisions are taken".
That this is right has been proved by further events. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, told us that recently several structures had been satisfactorily decommissioned by moving them onshore for recycling or re-use. He also told us that "Brent Spar" is unique because of its size and design and how Shell publicly called for ideas to decommission the "Brent Spar". Shell received hundreds of responses, many imaginative and some less so. Some suggestions were that future installations should be left in situ and turned into anything from a gambling casino to an offshore wind farm. Other ideas involved recycling parts of the structure for oil storage tanks onshore or as sea defences on the east coast or as fish breeding tanks.
There are many ingenious ideas as to how "Brent Spar" can be brought onshore into a dry dock or floated in a horizontal position to ease dismantling. One suggestion is that it should be cleaned up and, with the installation of a wind-powered generator, turned into a desalination plant to produce fresh water. On 1st November, there is to be the first of several conferences where 30 of these ideas will be discussed.
However, an interesting development could extend the life of the rigs. Companies are emerging which specialise in extending the productive life of mature oil fields. These firms have lower operating costs than the large oil companies and can operate profitably on lower volumes. That has an impact on depletion and tax, but extending the life of the offshore fields allows more time to develop new and cheaper ways of dealing with the platforms.
The point I wish to make is that by such openness, not only has there been more understanding of the issues involved, but also the possibilities of the best practical environmental option have been widened from only considering contamination of air, land and sea to possible alternative use, recycling of the installations or extending their working life.
As other noble Lords have said, there is a large element of judgment in the concept of the BPEO. Opening the process to public discussion and scrutiny should ensure rigorous and rational consideration of the facts. It will help in the disputes between industrial companies and the environmental lobbies because ultimately a solution has to be found. This openness should assist the Government in regulating matters.
As we progress and discover new ways of extracting fuel, there will always be new risks to ourselves and to the environment. We need to be open about this trade-off between risk and progress. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that nowadays for technical progress to succeed it needs the confidence of the public. I hope that this debate will help to reinforce that.
1660
It would be a welcome reward for the hard work of the committee and the clerks. I am most grateful to all for being such helpful, pleasant and willing colleagues.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I too add my congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on chairing the investigation. I joined the sub-committee not at the beginning but when it was about a quarter of the way through. As with all such investigations, there is a massive amount of data to digest. I admire the noble and gallant Lord's ability to make everyone digest it in the most appropriate way.
It is only two decades since we started drilling and recovering oil and gas from the seabed in the North Sea, often on the Continental Shelf, mostly less than 50 metres down but sometimes in much deeper waters. At present, there are of the order of 440 steel and concrete installations, of which 219 are in the UK sector. We learnt from the UK Offshore Operators Association that there are sufficient reserves to sustain significant levels of production of oil and gas for at least a further 20 years.
However, eventually—as with all fossil fuels—the supply of oil and gas runs out. Then the installations must be decommissioned and possibly disposed of. I am sure that all Members of the House have the booklet of the UK Offshore Operators Association which states that some 50 fields will be decommissioned in the next 10 years at a cost of approximately £1.5 billion. This is at present, and will be a major engineering and environmental challenge, as the report of the Select Committee states. Indeed, the committee has been an opportune study to bring together the present objective information and opinions on that information about decommissioning, as well as the more subjective opinions of those concerned with environmental and health issues.
The report will serve as a landmark in providing the basis of action in each case of decommissioning to decide the best practical environmental option (BPEO), especially for installations in the North Sea where difficult problems pertain and where large and heavy units are in deep water—compared with the decommissioning of shallow water installations, as in the Gulf of Mexico, where to date some 900 installations have been decommissioned. The BPEO includes an economic component as well as technical feasibility and the effects on the environment.
I was particularly drawn to the environmental issues and to the comments in the various evidence on the effects of decommissioning on the marine biota. This has been the concern of environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others. However, I believe that NERC, the environmental research council, in its evidence, set the minds of many, and certainly my mind, at rest as to the minimal impact that deep sea disposal would have on the marine biota at depths of 2,000 metres and below where deep sea disposal is planned.
At that depth waste would move, it is stated, in a horizontal manner and to a large extent not vertically because of a main thermocline at 1,000 metres. The

1661
conclusion of NERC is that many pollutants would be extremely diluted by the time they reached the surface waters and there would be no damage to the environment, fish or human health in that area. The deeper one goes, the more tenuous are the links with the surface and with areas below 2,000 metres there is little connection between the two. NERC suggests, therefore, convincingly to my mind, that deep sea disposal would pose no threat to commercial fisheries.
A suggestion from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee is that if disposal at sea were indeed the best practical environmental option, one deep sea water site should be chosen instead of dumping rigs all over the place. In such a case there is an opportunity to investigate a site to be used. The present scientific evidence is that it would lead to little or no pollution. In any case a single site could be kept under surveillance and monitored over a period of years.
There are situations where the marine disposal of installations, appropriately cleaned up, is beneficial to the marine biota in the formation of the reefs. The concept of "rigs to reefs" has been frequently practised in the Gulf of Mexico to great advantage.
All those points were made and were well received by the Government, with the exceptions mentioned, and by environmental groups. An important outcome of the report, mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others, is the transparency that is necessary in the decommissioning process to determine the best practical environmental option.
I believe that that has had an effect on the "Brent Spar" situation. I am sure that noble Lords have received from Shell an invitation for 1st November to practise a transparent opinion as to what should happen to that rig. The "Brent Spar" rig has very much focused our interest on this issue. It may well be that when the history of deep sea oil rigs and their disposal is written, it will be the signal marker of the start of a process of doing more research, which needs to be done, on the disposal of rigs in a deep sea situation. It is important that there is transparency and that people of many opinions have the opportunity to express interest in this issue.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am amazed at the fuss made about the prospect of toppling fully prepared rigs into the depths of the ocean. There must be thousands of ships littered over the sea bed, all ill-prepared for sinking, many in shallow water, sinking with hazardous cargoes, full oil tanks and often stuffed with ammunition. Certainly there is nothing to be happy about, but they do little damage to the environment and it puts into perspective the sinking of a fully prepared rig into very deep water well out of the way of any underwater activity.
There is, however, no technical reason why even structures in our deepest waters in the north of the North Sea need to be toppled. I base that view on public comments made by offshore heavy lift contractors that such structures can be lifted, removed and returned to land, even those made of concrete.
1662
Structures in shallow water are already being brought to land. That is being done in accordance with International Maritime Organisation regulations that all structures in less than 75 metres of water and weighing less than 4,000 tonnes must not be toppled but must be decommissioned and returned to land. That relates predominantly to the structures in the shallow southern North Sea. For instance, platforms have already been successfully removed from the BHP Hamilton Esmond field and the Conoco Viking field, and the Shell Leman BK platform is currently being removed. Furthermore, Esso is currently removing the "Odin" platform, which I understand to be in some 80 metres of water.
We must weigh the consequences of toppling structures, with the remote possibility of damage to the environment, against the prospect of bringing the structures ashore for decommissioning and thereby creating employment opportunities and having the advantage of enabling materials to be refurbished and recycled and thus overall reducing the depletion of natural resources.
It is important for us to realise the opportunities available for decommissioning rigs in this country and the advantage to the British economy, as well as ensuring that our seas and oceans are not environmentally disadvantaged.
On the face of it, cost might be considered the vital issue here. Ignoring any environmental issues, it may seem less costly simply to topple the structures than to bring them ashore and dismantle and recycle them. The main cost of bringing structures ashore lies with the removal and lifting of the structure from the seabed. The cost of dismantling equates with the value of the surplus parts, such as scrap, generators and so on.
Yards are therefore able to stockpile rigs and have a reservoir of work with which to keep their labour force occupied. Dismantling is therefore a valuable industry both economically and for the creation of some 500 jobs in one yard, provided there is a reasonably steady flow of rigs. Because a reservoir of rigs can be held at very little cost, those jobs can be fairly permanent.
If the structures are returned to land, the UK economy will receive a cost benefit from the job creation aspects and the material recycling savings. I have seen figures indicating that over 99 per cent. of materials are recycled from the structures brought back to land. So there is a strong case to be made that there are overall cost benefits and savings in bringing the structures back to land. I am told that the potential tonnage of material exceeds 10 million tonnes and the market value of onshore disposal is in the region of £3 billion. Those figures conflict with other figures mentioned; but whatever the figures are, they are very big.
The main onshore disposal yards are in the north east, which is why I am taking part in the debate. There is a large facility on the River Tees, in the north east of England, which can receive and successfully handle a significant proportion of the platforms that will need to be decommissioned, and there are other yards of rather less capacity. The Tees facility is large and well located for access from the sea and is in an area well away from

1663
housing. It is also located in an area where unemployment is very high, yet the skill base required is readily available.
There is one serious competitor to the UK yards; namely, Rotterdam. There are also smaller yards in Norway and on the Tyne. With the desperate need for jobs in the north east, it is vital that the UK should aim to be a leader with the North Sea dismantling industry. There is therefore a strong argument against cluttering our seas and ocean beds with rotting structures and toward the option of maximising UK job creation and material recycling. I have no doubt that future generations would certainly support that view.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I too thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, not least for on almost all occasions reminding us that this report is not just a synopsis of the events that took place regarding the "Brent Spar" but looks at the wider problem. It would be wrong to assume that the report was not prompted by the "Brent Spar" and the reactions to its disposal, but it has brought to light a much larger problem which will take many years to solve.
I hope the Minister will forgive me if I focus my contribution on the Government's response. On first reading the Government's response, I could not help but see it as an extremely positive and indeed generous document. However, I suspect that I am becoming quite cynical and I had to read it a second time. I was then struck by the fact that, although it is positive in nature, there are very few concrete plans and set financial commitments regarding future disposals of oil and gas sea installations.
I was heartened to see that the Government have accepted the idea that the best possible environmental option should apply to each individual rig. But I believe that there is an inherent danger associated with that; namely, the cost. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, there must be as much information as possible made available about these installations and their disposal and I feel that only through open government will the public come to accept their disposal at sea. However, as anybody who has taken part in a planning inquiry—say, between a county council and a supermarket—will know, those with the most money will have the loudest voice.
I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. Coming myself from the North East, I feel that it would be wrong not to recognise the financial viability of bringing these structures to the North East to be scrapped. A very large industry will probably grow up in the North East and also in Norway to look at the options for disposing of the rigs. However, financial considerations should not be our only focus.
I was interested to note in the report that the differences between the options of disposal are not paltry. The difference between taking the cheapest and the most expensive option runs into billions of pounds. Indeed, on individual rigs the difference can run into hundreds of millions of pounds. It would be wrong to consider cost as the ruling factor.
1664
With that in mind, when I re-read the Government response I felt slightly apprehensive. Discussing drill cuttings, on page 10, paragraph 32(b), the Government put forward the objective:
"To present a review of what have so far been estimated to be the effects of such cuttings piles"—
I come to the important part—
"(including but not limited to the environment)".
Obviously, the environment should not be the only factor taken into consideration. However, cost could easily outweigh the environment in many cases. This is where the Government must make the strongest stand. The best practical environmental option is a fairly movable feast. It is an artificial solution that will be set by the government of the day and the institutions.
I must admit that I entered the Select Committee feeling that dumping at sea was morally the wrong option. After noting the evidence that was given, I echo the view of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that dumping at sea should not be ruled out. In fact, in some cases that might be an environmentally sensible option.
But I also believe that it should be seen not as the first but rather as the last option. Financially it might be more expensive to bring many rigs to shore but their effect on the sea bed in the long term could be more detrimental. The changing nature of the financial position was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson. The value of the scrap metal may change dramatically in the next few years. It would be ironic if, in the future within our lifetimes, we see salvage operations to recover oil rigs dumped in the deep sea undertaken because of the rigs' scrap metal worth.
Looking at the dumping option, I was surprised—this was brought about by the visit to Aberdeen—when the DTI indicated that its cradle-to-grave scenario in clearing the sea floor meant that it was looking at taking the structures off the sea floor and bringing them to the surface. That is where the guidelines stopped. It was a separate consideration from their next destination. That is perhaps the fundamental flaw which underlined a great deal of our discussion.
When looking at the scale of options, it is hardly surprising that many designs of oil rig are not considered worth shifting. But perhaps it is a measure of our arrogance that half a million and even one million tonne structures were put on the sea bed with, perhaps at most, a 30 to 40-year life span, which might in some cases be extended. It is quite possible that those concrete structures will be there for hundreds of years in the future if, as is quite likely, they are left without their topsides.
Another problem brought out by the report, which will be a legacy for the future long past the removal of the rigs themselves, was the matter of drill cuttings. Drill cuttings were not seen as a major problem when we started our inquiry. Indeed, I had no idea that they existed. The drill cuttings themselves are the detritus of the drilling process. Oil was pumped down into the wells to make sure that the drilling took place smoothly. The drill cuttings were then dumped over the side. It is interesting now to see some of the models of oil installations put on display by the oil companies with

1665
very large amounts of drill cuttings built about their base. It will be interesting—this is a problem which has not been addressed to a great extent—to see at what point the structures can be removed. The drill cuttings are seen to be environmentally unstable if they are shifted; but, if the platforms themselves are to be cut off right at the sea bed, one will have to shift the drill cuttings. It is possible therefore that the platforms will have to be cut off above the level of the drill cuttings.
I was surprised also, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, pointed out in his speech, at how little research has been done into the drill cuttings themselves. A large amount of oil is trapped in the drill cuttings. There is of course an argument to say that it has not done a great deal of damage so far and therefore can be left; but it is also a fact that we are leaving on the sea bed a legacy for the future that may have serious environmental consequences over the long term.
I believe that the report gives a balanced viewpoint. The environment is dealt with adequately. There is obviously a compromise between the practical considerations, the economic viability in relation to moving structures, and the environmental considerations. However, the report points out that removing what has been placed on the sea bed over the past 30 years is a long-term consideration. It will be up to this Government and future governments to make sure that it is not an issue that is ignored.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I too join in congratulating the Select Committee on producing an excellent report and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on steering the committee to such an effective outcome. The report was good. It was clear and dealt with a difficult issue, though it was so effective that it made the issue seem less difficult than perhaps it is. The report will lead to more sensible, open and informed debate in the country—at least I hope it will. Though I was not a member of the committee, I learnt a great deal from reading the report and the supporting evidence.
I should also like to thank the many organisations that I approached for information, not to challenge the report but to update myself on what may have happened since it was published last February. Those organisations included individual oil companies—BP, Shell, Amoco and Kerr-Mcgee—the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and Greenpeace. They were all extremely helpful, as was the report of the Natural Environment Research Council published in April 1996 to which many noble Lords referred.
I should like to declare an interest in that I had the opportunity of visiting the United States this summer as a guest of the consortium of oil companies that operate in the North Sea. It gave me a chance to learn about the operation of oil companies in the United States and in particular a chance to look at the Gulf of Mexico where I visited one of the rigs. Of course, the situation in the Gulf is somewhat different—the waters are shallow, water extraction is easier bar the occasional hurricane, and the waters are less stormy.
1666
I had the opportunity to discuss with people from the oil industry the "rigs to reefs" project, which is certainly popular with sporting fishermen in that it seems to be an effective way of enabling them to do their fishing and possibly—though this has not been proved—increase the actual amount of stock available. I do not know whether that would work in the North Sea; opinions differ on that. I should have thought that it would be worth doing a little more research to find out whether there is any potential for doing that in the different waters that exist in the North Sea.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. At the time of "Brent Spar" a letter appeared in one of the newspapers written by a deep sea diver who knew about these matters. He said that where there is the wreck of a ship that has sunk, there are fish. If an oil rig such as "Brent Spar" or any other oil rig settled on the sea bed, there would be even more fish. That appears to relate to what the noble Lord opposite was saying and may well be right.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Earl says. Though the conditions in the North Sea are different and sporting fishermen may find it difficult to enter such deep waters, it may be worth pursuing in the way of marine research to see what the outcome could be. Incidentally, I was surprised on my visit to the United States to learn that exploration is not allowed offshore in Florida, California or Alaska. That is prevented every year by an addition to the Appropriations Bill that goes through Congress. It is odd that that should be the case when one considers the dependence of the United States on imported oil and the low prices that exist there. But that is one of the oddities that one discovers when looking at the situation in other countries.
Though the report is primarily concerned with the North Sea, looking at the situation globally it relates also to the Gulf of Mexico and offshore installations in the Far and Middle East. Perhaps therefore the lessons that we are learning today will have a bearing on how we tackle the environment and the environmental difficulties in other parts of the world. However, I shall confine myself to North Sea oil.
North Sea oil and gas are vitally important to our economic future. That is not the specific subject of the debate but perhaps I may make the comment in passing that I do not believe that over the past 17 years, as a country, we have derived the full economic advantage that we should. However, that is not necessarily a dispute with the oil companies but a dispute with the Conservative Government and the way that they have handled the situation.
In reading the report I was astonished at how many different government departments and agencies had some involvement with decommissioning. I counted 17 different government departments and agencies, quite apart from the interdepartmental Decommissioning Policy Review Committee. There is therefore much government interest in the subject. But whether 17 different departments and agencies are the best way of focusing attention on the matter I do not know. The

1667
Select Committee report recommended that the DTI should continue as the lead department and that seems to be sensible.
Other Members of the House drew attention to the differences between the northern, middle and southern sectors of the North Sea. For a long time it has been the policy that in the southern and central parts disposal should be on land because of the shallow waters and smaller rigs. The issue therefore concerns the 70 or so rigs that exist in the northern sector of the North Sea where conditions are more difficult and that is the main focus of our debate. Though they may be the minority of all the installations, I understand from the report that they cover nearly two-thirds of the weight of all the installations in the North Sea. In terms of disposal therefore they represent the larger part of the problem.
Perhaps I may mention in passing that a couple of weeks ago I had the chance to visit a floating rig (a floating platform)—Kerr-McGee's "Gryphon" rig in the North Sea. I was impressed by the concept of a ship acting as an extraction platform. It seemed to me to have many advantages in terms of decommissioning. When I put that to people from the oil company they said, "That is easy. When we want to decommission we simply sail the boat away to the North of England or wherever for disposal if it cannot be used at another site for extraction". I notice that other oil companies are beginning to look at that as a model for further work and that in itself is interesting. Whether it would be sustainable in the harsher climate in the West of Shetland, I do not know; but given the depth of water it may be one of the interesting options for the future in that area.
I looked with interest at the report and the costs of decommissioning. There are various estimates and they are very high. But we must bear in mind that a substantial part of the cost of decommissioning will be offset against taxes. Any savings in decommissioning will therefore be beneficial to the Exchequer and to the public purse.
I welcome the approach in the report to public consultation and openness and noted the various recommendations in relation to ensuring that the public should be better informed with regard to what is happening; that documentation should be made available; and that there should be adequate consultation allowing interested parties to make submissions about proposals for decommissioning. I suppose one could say, with the wisdom of hindsight, that had such an approach been in place earlier some of the controversy regarding "Brent Spar" might not have happened or, at any rate, would have been less heated. But where there is ignorance, emotions can run very high—on the basis of supposition rather than on fact. One of the lessons we have learnt, a point to which many noble Lords have referred, is that public opinion is important. We may not always agree with public opinion but in a democracy we ignore public opinion at our peril. One of the key conclusions is that we have to do our best to bring public opinion on board in terms of any of the approaches.
1668
I am pleased that the Government supported the committee's recommendation that there should be an acceptable decommissioning plan at the design and placement phase covering disposal and removal. I understand that in the lifetime of a platform or rig technology may change and improve and so it may well be that one has to work out the best practical environmental option for decommissioning towards the end of the life of the structure. But it would be a good thing if every new structure had a decommissioning plan worked out which could be brought into being or a better one developed towards the end of the life of such a structure.
I am glad the Government have said that in future they will not approve any decommissioning proposal unless and until they are satisfied that all possible options for the re-use of infrastructure have been thoroughly investigated and shown to be impractical. I also note that the IMO guidelines suggest—perhaps they have more force than a suggestion—that on or after 1st January 1998,
"no installation or structure should be emplaced on any continental shelf … unless the design of the installation or structure is such that an entire removal upon abandonment or permanent disuse would be feasible."
When Mr. Eggar, the energy Minister at the time, appeared before the Select Committee he was not totally clear about the implications of the IMO guideline and seemed to be leaving his options open. Perhaps that was because Ministers always like to leave their options open or because he wanted to allow for the possibility of such a thing as a "rigs to reefs option" being applied in the North Sea. Perhaps we shall hear more when the Minister replies.
The important point is that the oil industry has undertaken to remove all structures from the sea unless the Government say otherwise. That policy has been accepted by all the oil companies. Nevertheless, we are still in a very controversial area. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, described graphically what happened not so long ago in terms of public outcry about the proposal to sink "Brent Spar" in the Atlantic. He referred vividly to some of the action that took place in Germany where there were threats of violence against Shell petrol stations. Perhaps the effect of the report and the period for reflection will have calmed matters down but certainly the Select Committee has said that sea disposal should remain an option for thoroughly cleaned structures. That must be a sensible conclusion.
I notice that both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth oppose any disposal at sea. My understanding is that Greenpeace is opposed in principle to anything which may have an adverse effect on the marine environment and therefore is against the disposal of anything in the seas and oceans. One must have sympathy with its concerns, but for obvious reasons I find it difficult to go along with such an absolute position.
It might well be, as the report indicates, that bringing a structure on-shore could cause more environmental damage than sinking it at sea and there might be health risks to any of the people involved in dismantling such a structure. For example, I understand that there is asbestos on some of these structures and that while

1669
asbestos in the water is inert, asbestos when dealt with on-shore might cause
dangers, possibly unacceptable dangers, to persons dealing with it. Therefore, I would not take an absolute position on the matter.
I regret that Greenpeace has done so, although I think that public opinion will always be nervous about disposal in the sea unless we can inform the public much better than we have in the past. However, Greenpeace has argued in favour of a co-ordinated approach regarding on-shore decommissioning, claiming that it would be economic and therefore could be developed as a skill. It juxtaposes that with case-by-case policies advocated by the oil industry.
I do not think that they need be alternatives. It seems to me that case-by-case policies have quite a lot to commend them. But, given the widespread agreement that installations from the southern part of the North Sea will be disposed of or decommissioned on shore, a co-ordinated approach will inevitably be developed by the oil companies. Therefore I do not think this should be seen as an alternative to treating the more difficult decommissioning proposals on a case-by-case basis.
The Shell company has said that the decommissioning world will not be the same again following the "Brent Spar" episode. I know that it has had many bids for disposal in reply to its request and it is now considering some 29 to 30 bids on a long shortlist. Those will be considered against the original deep sea option which Shell still regards as the BPEO.
Can we learn anything from the "Piper Alpha" tragedy? Most of the structure is still in the water but the accommodation block has been recovered, which shows that technically it can be done. I understand that the DTI will continue monitoring to see whether it can pick up anything by way of environmental pollution coming from the rig. I hope it will continue monitoring because that will add to the information we have available.
The question of leaving concrete legs and bases has been adequately dealt with by other noble Lords. The view is that they can be left quite safely provided they do not damage fishermen's lines or commercial fishing lines. In the view of the fishing industry, partial stumps could be dangerous.
I suspect that, save in the most exceptional circumstances, the long-term future is that all rigs will be decommissioned on-shore. I say that taking into account the views of the oil companies, the experience of "Brent Spar", the IMO guidelines and public opinion and political pressure. I am not saying it should not happen; I am not saying it is impossible. I suspect that in the real world most installations will be decommissioned on-shore.
North Sea oil is bound to make an important contribution to our economic future. The report will help us better to understand the environmental impact of such developments and enable us better to cope with any environmental damage that may be caused. I warmly commend it to the House and to organisations outside.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps I
1670
may begin by apologising on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie who is unable to be here today. I know that he would have enjoyed replying to this most stimulating and interesting debate but, regrettably, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, told us, he is indisposed and returned from hospital only yesterday. I know I speak for the whole House in wishing him a speedy recovery—and certainly no one hopes more than I do that he will soon return to the Dispatch Box.
In their response to the committee the Government have formally welcomed the report which is the subject of our debate today. We wish to take the opportunity of expressing our gratitude to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and his colleagues for producing such a valuable and comprehensive document. Indeed, if anyone comes to me asking me where they can learn about the subject of decommissioning offshore installations, a subject on which I myself have been compelled to take a crash course in the past few days, I can tell them from personal experience that they can do no better than to look at the committee's excellent report.
The decommissioning of offshore installations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf is not a new area of activity. The legislation which provides the statutory framework for considering decommissioning decisions received Royal Assent in 1987. Since then, under the terms of the Petroleum Act 1987 the Government have approved 12 decommissioning programmes. But the events surrounding the frustrated disposal of the "Brent Spar" oil storage and loading buoy during 1995 have brought the subject of decommissioning into sharp focus.
The Select Committee intended its report to be a contribution to the on-going debate in the aftermath of the "Brent Spar" affair. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, told us, although the report is not in any sense an inquiry into the "Brent Spar", it nevertheless highlights lessons which can be learned.
We entirely accept that in the future the public should be in no doubt about the basis upon which decisions have been taken. As my noble friend Lord Soulsby said, Shell shares that view, as it has indicated in the past few days.
Decisions will continue to be taken on the basis of the best practicable environmental option—the BPEO. That process, which was originated by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, is crucial to the way decisions are made.
The BPEO procedure ensures that the best available relevant factual information is identified. All possible solutions are reviewed. The comparative assessment takes account of technical feasibility, health and safety, environmental factors, including cumulative effects, economic factors and the interests of other users of the sea.
My noble friend Lord Selborne spoke in some detail about the BPEO. I know that he will be pleased to note that we continue to believe that that approach is the one

1671
most likely to achieve sensible and balanced conclusions reflecting the particular issues raised by each decommissioning proposal.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that public acceptability should be part of the BPEO. It is not part of the BPEO, but it is not ignored. Ministers must take a view on the public acceptability of any particular decommissioning programme. The final decision takes account of all the relevant factors and is taken in a transparent manner. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will be pleased to hear that.
That is what we mean by a scientific approach. It is the cornerstone of all we do on decommissioning. It was the basis of our decision not only on "Brent Spar" but on all the other decommissioning proposals which have been made to us. We are grateful that the committee has endorsed the approach. It has recommended that the Government's guidelines should state explicitly that the BPEO procedure must be followed in decommissioning operations.
Last year, my right honourable friend Tim Eggar, then Minister for Industry and Energy, asked Professor John Krebs, Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, to establish a group of scientists and engineers with the task of examining the scientific evidence. Their job was to look at the potential environmental impacts of the disposal of large offshore structures, using the "Brent Spar" as an example.
That group of very distinguished experts, chaired by Professor John Shepherd of the Southampton Oceanography Centre, published its report on 22nd May 1996. The group has attempted to set the environmental impacts of the deep-sea disposal of decommissioned installations in context, mostly by comparison with natural and man-made analogues. We agree that it is a useful aid to understanding.
Its view is that the global impacts on the environment and on human health of the deep-sea disposal of a structure such as the "Brent Spar" would be very small—roughly equivalent to the impacts associated with the wreck in the deep ocean of a ship of 30,000 to 50,000 tonnes with its tanks pumped out.
It also concludes that the available evidence indicates that the environmental impacts of the deep-sea disposal of a structure such as the "Brent Spar" are not large enough to be a crucial factor in the selection of the best disposal options or for that option to be excluded from consideration.
That conclusion is rather similar to a somewhat broader one reached by Dr. Gordon Picken of the University of Aberdeen in evidence to the committee. Dr. Picken says (HL Paper 46-I, page 215, paragraph 14):
"If decommissioning is carried out according to the existing International Maritime Organisation guidelines and international conventions, there would be no strong environmental imperatives, from an ecological point of view, that would highlight options that would be totally unacceptable. The environmental gradient is neither long nor strong. There is therefore no clear-cut need, on ecological environmental grounds, to carry out options which are technically demanding, risky or expensive, in order to reduce or eliminate potentially significant environmental impacts. They do not exist".
1672
We accept that this is a broad theoretical generalisation. A comparative assessment in each case will tell us whether it is right or not. The important point which we must never tire of making is that we are looking for sensible decisions which protect the environment. But those decisions must be advised by sound science.
The best practical environmental option provides an appropriate and well-tested vehicle. We must not make decisions solely on the basis of emotion.
The committee made important recommendations in relation to the restoration of international agreement. The Government agree that the re-establishment of international consensus is an important goal. We are working to achieving that. Perhaps I may take a few moments to relate where those international discussions now stand.
The OSPAR Convention is a regional convention for the protection of the marine environment in the north east Atlantic area, including the North Sea. At the meeting in June 1995 of the contracting parties of the OSPAR Commission, a majority of parties—but without the agreement of the UK and Norway—agreed upon a moratorium on the disposal at sea of decommissioned offshore installations pending preparation of a draft decision to ban the disposal of such installations for implementation by 1997.
Under the rules of procedure of OSPAR, the UK and Norway are not bound by that moratorium. It has no binding legal effect on those countries which voted against it. The resolution is a political gesture. It has no practical effect. Those countries which voted for it have in their waters relatively light installations in shallow water similar to those in the southern part of the UK sector of the North Sea. Such installations are required under international guidelines to be entirely removed. We have made it clear that the BPEO for such British installations is likely to be disposal on-shore.
The large concrete installations may need to remain in place. If that is shown to be the BPEO, and if there are safeguards for navigation, fisheries and the environment, it should be allowed.
The heavier steel installations in deep waters are those for which options other than disposal on land must be maintained. We are not saying that such installations will be disposed of at sea; but we are saying that it is not sensible to exclude the option from consideration. The BPEO will show the way.
However, international discussions have moved on since the summer of 1995. We have made progress in OSPAR to the extent that the other contracting parties have expressed a willingness to reach agreement on the basis of consensus. That is a welcome development.
An ad hoc working group on the disposal of offshore installations will be meeting early in December to seek a way forward. It will prepare a draft OSPAR decision for consideration by OSPAR Ministers at their meeting in June 1997.
In those discussions officials will continue to press our view that the environment is best served by the identification of the BPEO. If sea disposal is agreed to

1673
be the best course, a judgment based on scientific evidence will be taken as to whether any materials which remain after cleaning are hazardous.
The OSPAR Convention already provides a tough test. It requires that no permit shall be issued for sea disposal of an installation which contains substances which result in hazards to human health, harm to living resources and to marine ecosystems, damage to amenities or interference with other legitimate users of the sea.
In preparation for the discussions in the ad hoc working group, there are many studies under way to provide evidence against which decisions might be taken. We have already sent copies of the Select Committee's report to all those who will be participating in the discussions. We are sure that they will find it a very valuable source of information. We have also circulated copies of the Shepherd Report.
In addition a study is under-way to identify all removal and disposal options for each of the categories of installation on the UK Continental Shelf. The study will also advise us whether, within the framework of the BPEO concept, a generic removal and disposal option may be appropriate. What we have in mind is consideration of whether we might be able to establish a generic BPEO for any particular category of installation. To take two extreme examples, one might be able to say as a generalisation that concrete installations might remain in place, but that all light installations in shallow water might be entirely removed and disposed of onshore. As my noble friend Lord Campbell said, we agree that new technology, such as floating platforms which are being used west of Shetland will lead to fewer decommissioning problems.
If the generic approach was appropriate it might be possible to use it to reach agreement internationally. It would also be advantageous in practice if it were possible to compare a certain type of installation against its genotype and come to a reasonably swift conclusion that a particular course of action was the right one. However, part of the study is to identify for each category any factors which might make the generic option inapplicable in individual cases, so requiring them to be considered separately.
The London Convention is the global dumping convention. At their 18th consultative meeting in December 1995, the contracting parties of the London Convention considered whether there ought to be a moratorium similar to that in OSPAR. They rejected that proposal. They concluded that contracting parties should apply the convention and the International Maritime Organisation's guidelines and standards in their national practice on a case-by-case basis. They requested the London Convention's scientific group to review the status of the disposal at sea of offshore installations, taking into account current procedures, existing international technical guidelines and standards, and the introduction of the waste assessment framework in the London Convention. The scientific group concluded that existing arrangements were satisfactory but agreed to propose the introduction of a specific waste assessment framework for the disposal at sea of offshore
1674
installations. When it is agreed, that waste assessment framework will provide an international mechanism for a comparative assessment of options. This is a welcome development which reinforces the scientific approach to decommissioning.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Nathan, Lord Haskel, and indeed the committee themselves, have rightly identified transparency and consultation as central to understanding in the decommissioning process. The Government are committed to improvement in both these areas. The exact mechanism of improved communication between the oil companies and the public on the one hand, and between the public and the Government on the other is yet to be decided. Whatever the process will be, we are clear that it must be the best that we can arrange. I am pleased to confirm that we are looking for an open and transparent system.
The last draft of the DTI guidance notes went out to consultation in May 1995 and the consultation period ended in August of that year. The "Brent Spar" affair happened in the midst of that period. We think it is right that we should look at those guidance notes again and take account of the lessons we have learned. There will certainly be revised sections on transparency and consultation.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, asked for an update on the guidance notes. What the guidelines say on consultation will depend to some extent on the outcome of our international discussions. There must be another round of full consultation within the United Kingdom. On that basis, and bearing in mind that the OSPAR ministerial conversation will not be complete before the end of June 1997, it would not be reasonable to expect publication before the end of 1997.
There is little commercial advantage to be gained at the decommissioning stage. The DTI will be encouraging the oil and gas industry to undertake whatever information-sharing and co-operative ventures will reduce costs. We shall certainly be looking for an increased commitment to joint industry funding for research and development where that is appropriate.
The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association already has a good record in fostering co-operation between its members. For example, it recently joined with the DTI in commissioning an assessment of the environmental implications of the presence of drill cuttings during the decommissioning process. That study is complete. Its results will play an important part in informing future policy in this area.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Campbell, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, raised this point. They will be keen to learn that the Select Committee recommended that further research should be undertaken. An initial scoping study has been completed recently which has identified a range of options for dealing with drill cuttings. Further research will be undertaken and I hope that will be some reassurance for the noble Lords and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.

1675
Research is important for the development of future policy and operations. It is vital that we ensure that the best use is made of both past and future studies. Oil and gas companies, commercial consultancies, universities, the research councils, and Government all have their part to play. It is important that all these efforts are co-ordinated and that existing co-operation should be improved.
I should like to mention some of the very interesting points that were raised during the course of this debate. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and my noble friend Lord Selborne mentioned (and I am pleased to agree with them) the case by case approach. That will include consideration of the cumulative effects of what we are doing.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and indeed my noble friend Lord Soulsby also mentioned the single grave site. We believe it is unlikely that the number of deep sea disposals will be high. It is possible that the site chosen for the "Brent Spar" will be suitable as a single site but it would clearly be sensible to satisfy ourselves on that point as the cases arise.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, also asked about the long term liability. We are ready to discuss any proposal that the industry may wish to make. We recognise the need for provision to be made in those circumstances where, for example, a large concrete installation in deep water may remain in place, and I agree that it is never too early or too soon to be considering this matter. The DTI will be discussing this with the offshore industry.
The noble and gallant, Lord, Lord Craig, also mentioned the importance of buoys. The important thing we need to remember is that any remains of decommissioned installations will be marked on the charts. Fishermen are required to carry such charts with them and they will therefore be in a position to avoid any of the remains.
My noble friend Lord Campbell also spoke about fishing. I would like to acknowledge the role that Lord Campbell of Croy played in establishing the Fisheries and Offshore Oil Consultative Group. The group enables both the fisheries and the oil industries to share their problems and to meet the challenges. I agree with him that solutions may be found which suit all sides, but we should recognise that the area which may be denied to fishermen is probably very small indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke about a cradle to grave plan for offshore installations. Regulations administered by the Health and Safety Executive require that the design of all installations should include consideration of decommissioning so that it may be accomplished safely. In addition, the DTI will require companies to demonstrate in their field development proposals that they have taken account of the entire decommissioning process and indicate what their outline plans are for removal and disposal at that stage. However, detailed proposals will be determined by the best practical environmental option at the end of the structure's life.
1676
My noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior referred to the rigs and reefs programme in the Gulf of Mexico, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, took advantage of his holiday in America to find out a little bit more about it. As regards that programme, we are considering the matter. It may be that the benefits conferred by the warm waters off the Gulf of Mexico will not necessarily arise in the North Sea. That matter must be investigated—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that I was talking about the professional fishermen and not the sporting fishermen. We must put our professional fishermen first in the North Sea.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned technical advances and was right to comment on the recent achievements of the offshore industry. They are significant. I am certain that, when he returns to the House, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser will be happy to bring the noble Lord up to date on the skill and quality within the industry. I shall certainly point that out to my noble and learned friend.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough mentioned the IMO guidelines and the fact that they refer to removal rather than to disposal. We expect all the light platforms to be brought to shore because that is the BPEO on such installations. My noble friend also pointed out that the fact that platforms can be lifted does not mean that the balance of advantage will show that they should be lifted. That too will depend on the BPEO. I agree with my noble friend and acknowledge the contribution that has been made to our economy by the yards in the north east of England and elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that, although the DTI leads the decommissioning policy, many other departments, including the Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Executive, have a strong interest in the final fate of the disused installations. I have never found the noble Lord to be cynical but I was surprised by some of his remarks today. I believe that the report is positive and we recommend it. The Government's response is positive and I believe that all who read it properly can see that. I suggest that the noble Lord has another little look at it and thinks again.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I mentioned the fact that I found the report positive but said that it was not very concrete in its proposals for the future. If the Minister can indicate that the Government will carry out all the proposals I shall be happy.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not expect me to comment in that respect at this moment. We welcome the report and I believe that we are going ahead on practically every part of it. As I listened to the noble Lord it appeared to me that he did not agree with all of the report.

1677
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was correct in suggesting that my honourable friend Mr. Tim Eggar did not understand very much about the feasibility of removal: he understood it very well indeed. It must be technically possible but the BPEO will always be the way to guide any decisions.
I conclude by saying that we welcome the committee's report. It is an important and timely contribution to the debate on decommissioning which was given an impetus by the events surrounding "Brent Spar" during the summer of 1995. The Government acknowledge that further steps are needed in transparency and consultation. We are committed to the scientific approach to decision making, which takes full account of potential effects on the environment as a whole. We are continuing to press home that point of view in all our international discussions. When the international discussions are concluded, we shall be in a better position to issue guidelines for industry.
Meanwhile, we remain committed to taking decisions on a sensible basis. The committee's report reinforces our commitment to that approach. I thank the committee again for all its hard work in producing the report and I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for chairing the committee.
I hope that I have answered the concerns which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised towards the end of the debate. If not I shall write to him. Before I sit down I wish to make one short comment. I believe that the report is first class and we welcome it. I did not think that the discussion was to descend into anything political and I was amazed that the noble Lord believed that after l 7 years of Conservative government there is something wrong with our economy. We inherited the title "The poor man of Europe" and now we are a country which everyone emulates.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, we have had a
1678
most interesting debate. It has been generally positive in tone, which is notable, and that I welcome. I thank the Minister for her remarks and for accepting our report in such a strong and positive way. I am grateful for the contributions from all members of the committee and from other Members of your Lordships' House. We have had some interesting contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke of the industry being young. When it comes to the disposing of installations it is positively in its infancy. I was rather distressed to learn that it will take so long to issue the guidelines on how to carry on the disposal. It makes the gestation period of the elephant seem meteoric.
The "Brent Spar" has figured greatly in our discussions and no doubt it may hit the headlines again. However, as so many noble Lords have stressed, openness is an important part of the ongoing business of educating and informing the public. Research was mentioned by several noble Lords and I am sure that their points were well made.
I do not wish to prolong the debate and I thank all those concerned, in particular for the kind remarks which noble Lords made about my chairmanship. I am grateful and I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments; the amendments ordered to be printed; Bill ordered to be printed as amended; a Special Report made and ordered to be printed.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.

  European Union Enlargement
  European Union Enlargement
  Armoured Water Cannon
  Armoured Water Cannon
  The Gambia
  The Gambia
  Northern Iraq: Irbil Shelling
  Northern Iraq: Irbil Shelling
  Legislation and Human Rights Obligations
  Legislation and Human Rights Obligations
  Torture: Right of Individual Petition
  Torture: Right of Individual Petition
  Ballistic Missile Defence: US/Israeli Agreement
  Ballistic Missile Defence: US/Israeli Agreement
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  NATO Enlargement: Costs
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  International Planned Parenthood Federation
  Birth Control Trust
  Birth Control Trust
  Psychotropic Drugs: Effects
  Psychotropic Drugs: Effects
  Long-stay Hospitals: Closure
  Long-stay Hospitals: Closure
  Village Communities for the Mentally Handicapped
  Village Communities for the Mentally Handicapped
  Asylum Seekers: Special Grant
  Asylum Seekers: Special Grant
  Council of Europe Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Council of Europe Human Rights and Biomedicine Convention
  Foetal Sentience: All-Party Pro-Life Group Report
  Foetal Sentience: All-Party Pro-Life Group Report
  Employment of Children
  Employment of Children
  Agency Privatisations
  Agency Privatisations
  MoD Contracts
  MoD Contracts
  Mr. John Beckwith
  Mr. John Beckwith
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  European Convention on Human Rights: Impact on Ministerial Proposals
  European Convention on Human Rights: Impact on Ministerial Proposals
  Human Rights: Duty of Compliance
  Human Rights: Duty of Compliance
  Latin America: London Conference
  Latin America: London Conference
  Burma: Mr. Michael Cohen's Visit
  Burma: Mr. Michael Cohen's Visit
  Copyright and Related Rights: European
  Convention
  Convention
  Northern Ireland: Co-ordination of Departmental Initiatives
  Northern Ireland: Co-ordination of Departmental Initiatives
  Northern Ireland: Emergency Provisions Renewal
  Northern Ireland: Emergency Provisions Renewal
  Northern Ireland: Race Relations Legislation
  Northern Ireland: Race Relations Legislation
  Northern Ireland: Ethnic Monitoring
  Northern Ireland: Ethnic Monitoring
  Northern Ireland: Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment Guidelines
  Northern Ireland: Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment Guidelines
  Benefit Offices: Future Administration
  Benefit Offices: Future Administration
  Benefit Payments: Administration
  Benefit Payments: Administration
  Asylum Seekers: Benefit Restriction
  Asylum Seekers: Benefit Restriction
  Asylum-Seekers: In-Country Applicants
  Asylum-Seekers: In-Country Applicants
  Child Support Agency: Computer System
  Child Support Agency: Computer System
  UK Debt: Percentage of GNP
  UK Debt: Percentage of GNP
  UK and EU Debt: Percentage of GNP
  UK and EU Debt: Percentage of GNP
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Refugees: Benefit Rules
  Refugees: Benefit Rules
  DSS: Male/Female Staff Ratio
  DSS: Male/Female Staff Ratio
  North Thames Health Region: Abortions
  North Thames Health Region: Abortions
  Deaths: Notifications to Government Departments
  Deaths: Notifications to Government Departments
  Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment Guidelines
  Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment Guidelines
  TEC Courses: Figures
  TEC Courses: Figures
  Life Sentences: Tariffs
  Life Sentences: Tariffs
  Immigration: Application Forms
  Immigration: Application Forms
  Casinos, Bingo Clubs and Advertising of Commercial Gambling: Report
  Casinos, Bingo Clubs and Advertising of Commercial Gambling: Report
  Criminal Justice Delays: Review
  Criminal Justice Delays: Review
  "Offences of Dishonesty: Money Transfers" Law Commission Report
  "Offences of Dishonesty: Money Transfers" Law Commission Report
  UK Passports: Security
  UK Passports: Security
  Prisoners: Identification Numbers
  Prisoners: Identification Numbers
  Women Imprisoned for Murder
  Women Imprisoned for Murder
  Deportation: Matters Considered before Enforcement
  Deportation: Matters Considered before Enforcement
  Asylum Immigrant (Ref. TN3/96/80865): Investigation
  Asylum Immigrant (Ref. TN3/96/80865): Investigation
  Europol Convention: Operational Powers
  Europol Convention: Operational Powers
  A.92 Trunk Road Scheme
  A.92 Trunk Road Scheme
  Eurostar: Security
  Eurostar: Security
  Ashford International Station: Security
  Ashford International Station: Security
  "Rural England 1996"
  "Rural England 1996"
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Investigating Committee Membership
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Investigating Committee Membership
  Charitable Events on Set-aside Land
  Charitable Events on Set-aside Land
  BSE in Cattle Born after July 1988
  BSE in Cattle Born after July 1988
  Farm Animals: Protocol to European Convention
  Farm Animals: Protocol to European Convention
  Rat Infestation: Control
  Rat Infestation: Control
  Abattoir Waste: Use as Fertiliser
  Abattoir Waste: Use as Fertiliser
  Scrapie
  Scrapie
  HM the Queen and HRH the Prince of Wales: Self Assessment for Tax
  HM the Queen and HRH the Prince of Wales: Self Assessment for Tax
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, Scotland and Wales
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, Scotland and Wales
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  "Hansard" Internet Publication
  "Hansard" Internet Publication
  House of Lords Judgments: Internet Publication
  House of Lords Judgments: Internet Publication
  The Scarman Trust
  The Scarman Trust
  Test Match Cricket Listing under Broadcasting Act 1990
  Test Match Cricket Listing under Broadcasting Act 1990
  Cricket: Lottery Support
  Cricket: Lottery Support