Sitting of 6 November 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What plans he has for speeding up reforms to the common agricultural policy. [12609]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I expect the Commission to propose detailed CAP reforms early next year. Making progress on discussion of those reforms will be a priority for the UK presidency of the Agriculture Council.
    Mr. O'Brien: It is pleasing to note that from 1 January next year the EU presidency will be with the Labour Government. As one of the EU's objectives is to help small farms, will my right hon. Friend make every endeavour to ensure that the UK's large farms do not suffer under any CAP reforms? Will he also make every endeavour to assure us that the benefits of any CAP review will be felt by UK customers in the form of lower food prices?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend assurance on both those points. First, I would not support any form of modulation which discriminated against the UK or our efficient farmers. There are arguments for reducing expenditure on the CAP, but the argument that expenditure should be targeted at less efficient farming does not appeal to me. As for directing the benefits of any change towards consumers, I can assure my hon. Friend that we expect consumers to benefit quite significantly from changes to the cereals, beef, and—if we could achieve them—the milk regime too.
    Mr. Walter: The Commission's proposals for reform of the CAP are outlined in Agenda 2000, but does the Minister agree that they make little concession towards enlargement of the EU, that they are probably unacceptable to the World Trade Organisation and that the financial outcome will be that they cost the taxpayer more rather than less?
    Dr. Cunningham: I can partially agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some of the proposals will help us to conform with the likely requirements of the next round of WTO talks, and some will help us to develop a successful enlargement of the EU, which is the policy of Her
    378
    Majesty's Government, but proposing that milk quotas should continue until 2006 will not help us to achieve either of those two objectives.
    Mr. Blizzard: When considering the effects of European policy on British agriculture, farmers in my constituency are rather keen on the single European currency. Was not the Chancellor's statement on the euro last week in the best interests of British agriculture, while the stance taken by the Leader of the Opposition does a disservice to farmers and shows that the Opposition are completely out of touch with the countryside?
    Dr. Cunningham: Exactly so—for a party which claims to be in touch with what is happening in the agriculture and food industries to suppose that that is not the case just shows how out of touch with reality it really is.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister acknowledge that one of the potential benefits that can accrue to the United Kingdom through the coincidence of his custodianship of the Council of Ministers in the first half of next year and the CAP reform agenda is that he will be in a position to resist the understandable political temptation to speed up reform and, if he judges it correctly from a British as well as a wider European interest, he can ensure that time is taken to get the matter right, not least in the light of the implications that were acknowledged by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)?
    In that context, given the uncertainty against which UK agriculture is operating with the agenda before us, will he take this opportunity to clarify or amplify the remarks made in the Chamber earlier in the week during the rural affairs debate as to the immediate, early, specific and targeted steps that he can take to alleviate some of the income difficulties being experienced, particularly in the less favoured areas, with regard to hill livestock compensatory allowances?
    Dr. Cunningham: There were several questions there.
    I broadly support the proposals for agricultural reform in Agenda 2000. As I have said before, some of them do not go far enough for me, but we must be realistic about the coalition for change that it is possible to build in the Agriculture Council.
    The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has said that £200 million is available to me because of an underspend on sheep annual premium, but that is not the case. If that money were available to me at no cost to the United Kingdom taxpayer, there would be no sensible reason for me not to take it. It is not available.
    I recognise that the real problem on the hills at the moment is in the beef sector, given that last year sheep producers had a record year for the price of their lambs. This year, beef producers will benefit directly from £450 million of support. In addition, over the next couple of years we shall spend £2 billion dealing with the consequences of BSE. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has not made any unrealistic demands for cash, but I put it to him that there is a limit to how much the taxpayer can spend on these problems. The answer is to restructure the beef sector.
    Mr. Jack: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the answer that he has just given, in which he dismissed

    379
    the claim that I made in the debate on Tuesday that there was an underspend on the sheep annual premium? Will he confirm that he has received advice that there is an underspend on that budget? Will he also confirm that, in the light of that underspend, if he were to maintain the current levels of spending on hill livestock compensatory allowances, he would not breach his Department's public expenditure survey limits, which have already been set? If he cannot defend the interests of hill farmers—who are some of the hardest pressed farmers in this country—by giving me a positive answer, will he confirm that the truth of the matter is that the Treasury already has the money?
    Dr. Cunningham: The truth of the matter is that that was the same rubbish that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday evening. I can confirm that the sheep annual premium is a demand-led scheme and is fully funded by the European Community. We make estimates of expenditure under the scheme, but there is no specific provision for that. To suggest that, because there may be less in sheep annual premium this year than last year, the difference is available to me to use for hill livestock compensatory allowances is absurd nonsense. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, let me tell him that hill farmers know it and they know that he is bogusly trying to raise a scare.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister referred to the priority that he is giving to reform of the common agricultural policy. Will he enlighten us on the ways in which that reform could take place? Does he acknowledge that one way would be to reduce headage payments and to spend more money on agri-environmental schemes? Are the Government of the view that that is one way forward?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is one of the positive opportunities for reform that we should grasp. We should decouple CAP expenditure from production. I should like to see reductions in support—with, I emphasise, transitional support for farmers—so that we move towards market prices for commodities. We should transfer some of those resources into agri-environment schemes and into rural economies generally.
    It is obvious that expenditure on agriculture and farming alone will never solve the problems of rural areas, the uplands or anywhere else. We must take other measures. It is also obvious that the policies pursued by the previous Administration for 18 years, far from solving the problems of rural areas and uplands, made them worse. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need new policies: he is absolutely right.

    Meat Hygiene Service
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: What steps he is taking to improve the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service. [12610]
    Dr. John Cunningham: My first priority is to safeguard the health and well being of consumers, and the Meat Hygiene Service is in absolutely no doubt of that.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. What steps does he intend to take to raise
    380
    consumer confidence in standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses, and when does he intend to publish individual hygiene scores?
    Dr. Cunningham: We have taken a significant number of steps to improve consumer confidence in the hygiene and safety of meat in general and beef in particular. We shall publish individual hygiene assessment scores from January next year. We have taken action to remove dirty livestock from the food chain; contaminated carcases must never be passed as fit for human consumption; we are providing additional training for Meat Hygiene Service staff; we have stepped up attendance at plants, particularly those with low hygiene scores; and we have given a wider role to principal official veterinary surgeons as circuit supervisors of plant-based hygiene and inspection teams. In those and other ways, we are concentrating and focusing on driving up hygiene standards in the meat industry.
    Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister agree that the establishment of the Meat Hygiene Service in York—in conjunction with the Central Science Laboratory at Sand Hutton in my constituency—has been an outstanding success? Will he take this opportunity to say that the jobs and prospects of staff at both establishments will be protected when he creates his Food Standards Agency?
    Dr. Cunningham: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The last Administration's decision to establish the Meat Hygiene Service was a good one. It has worked: it has improved the efficiency of the system. [Interruption.] I am saying that it was a good idea. It is rather churlish of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to protest when I am agreeing with one decision made by his Administration. I am telling his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the service has improved efficiency and is an excellent feature of our determination to drive up hygiene standards. It has an assured future: responsibility for it will pass to the Food Standards Agency, and we have no intention of moving it from York.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Bradshaw: What measures the Government are taking to ensure that the British public have confidence in his Department's statements about food safety. [12611]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Our clear priority is to put food safety first. We are looking towards the creation of an independent Food Standards Agency, which was a clear manifesto commitment, and we shall publish a White Paper very soon.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend share my great concern that consumer confidence in this country will be severely shaken if the World Trade Organisation succeeds in its current attempt to overthrow the European Union ban on imports of beef from America containing hormones that we all know cause cancer? Will he assure the House that he will join his colleagues in the European Union to fight the World Trade Organisation and the Americans tooth and nail?
    Mr. Rooker: The World Trade Organisation rules allow Governments to choose the appropriate level of

    381
    protection for their citizens, which is absolutely right. What they do not allow are restrictions on trade which are not scientifically justified or are in themselves discriminatory. The hormones case is still going through the disputes procedure. We shall be looking for an outcome that protects consumers and their rights while respecting the sound scientific principles on which the WTO rules are based, without which there would be international chaos.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister confirm that public health safety will be the primary object of the new food safety organisation, and that it will have its primary remit in the best scientific evidence that is available at the time?
    Mr. Rooker: The answer to both questions is yes.
    Mr. Dawson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the E. coli outbreak in my constituency of Lancaster and Wyre? The victims have fortunately recovered, and the firm involved has been completely exonerated and has operated in a very responsible manner. It seems that the problem related to the use of unpasteurised milk. Will my hon. Friend give some consideration to future policy regarding the use of unpasteurised milk in cheese-making?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, I am aware of the recent outbreak in my hon. Friend's constituency. The outbreak control team met this morning. It has carried out a risk assessment of the factory and its products and has decided that there is no justification for extending the action taken in respect of unpasteurised milk cheese to other cheeses produced by that factory. Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Department of Health left for Lancashire this morning and should arrive there by early afternoon, although they are not part of the outbreak control team. I am moving to bring English policy on the drinking of raw, unpasteurised milk into line with that which has been in place in Scotland for many years, but
    I have no plans to do that in respect of cheese.
    Mrs. Ewing: Has the Minister had an opportunity to read the Official Report of yesterday afternoon's Committee proceedings on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order? We looked carefully at the issue of fish safety and people's attitude to health issues relating to its consumption. Is the Minister aware that 293 square miles of the Moray firth have been banned to fishermen and that this dates from the first report of oil pollution on 28 August? At one point, it was 150 tonnes. It was then downgraded to 100 tonnes and subsequently moved up to 685 tonnes of oil pollution. It is sad that, in yesterday's Committee debate, the Government showed little sense of reality on the question of how to deal with long-term issues affecting co-operation by the oil and fishing industries to ensure that both industries are safe.
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Lady raises an important point which was not dealt with by the Ministry at yesterday's meeting of the Committee. Nevertheless, I am aware of the general issues that she rightly raises and I will write to her on the detailed points.

    Battery Hens
    Ann Clwyd: What steps he is taking to further the welfare of battery hens. [12612]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The welfare of laying hens is a matter of concern which needs to be resolved at EU level. This is why we are pressing the Commission to bring forward proposals to amend the current controls. We expect these amendments to recognise the need to plan the long-term phasing out of the conventional battery system.
    Ann Clwyd: I am sure that I do not need to remind my hon. Friend, with his commitment to animal welfare, of the cruel conditions in which battery hens live. They are unable to stretch their wings, to peck or to scratch, and they are not even able to make nests in which to lay their eggs. What action does he intend to take on the Farm Animal Welfare Council report, which calls for the phasing out of battery cages and for further research on alternatives to that very cruel method of raising hens?
    Mr. Morley: The Government have welcomed the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on laying hens. We are also commissioning research into supporting alternative systems and dealing with the welfare problems of each system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address the issue during the UK presidency to seek improvements to battery systems in the short term.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Minister agree that hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in the welfare of animals and of battery hens in particular? Does he further agree that this must be a matter for the EU and that we must have a common standard throughout? Does he also agree that the answer to the welfare of hens in a battery system is down to good husbandry and that the number of eggs that are required in this country for catering and for private consumption cannot be supplied by free-range or barn systems? In addition, housewives cannot afford such eggs. Will he present a common-sense solution to the problem and ensure that, with good husbandry, the product can be afforded by the majority of Britain's families?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Lady is right to say that the issue must be approached on a Europe-wide basis; otherwise our producers would be undermined without welfare gain in relation to the eggs on shop shelves. Retailers such as Marks and Spencer have announced that they will no longer stock any eggs except those from free range systems. Undoubtedly consumer demand and quality assurance schemes from retailers are already driving change in that area.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Amess: What recent representations he has received on the common fisheries policy. [12613]
    Mr. Morley: I have received many recent representations on the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Amess: Will the Minister do all he possibly can to reverse the decline of the inshore fishery? Is he aware that

    383
    many fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea feel that sole and plaice quota has been lost to flag ships and that that imbalance has failed to be addressed by underpinning? Will he finally ensure that EC directive 2141/70 article 39(i) is adhered to, as it will help fishermen in Leigh-on-Sea and those people who eat the fish in Basildon?
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Member makes a serious point about the pressures on the inshore fishing industry, and Ministers are committed to supporting that sector of the industry. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in the discussions that, as he is aware, are taking place on a change towards fixed quota allocation the Government will ensure that the needs of the inshore industry are protected and recognised by continued underpinning of quota and, in relation to directive EC 2141/70, by support for the inshore industry through schemes such as PESCA and harbour grants. The industries in that area are eligible for such schemes. They can make an application, and of course we shall treat each application on its merits as part of our support for the fishing industry.
    Mr. Andrew George: While I appreciate the efforts being made by the Minister at the recent meeting of European Ministers to ensure that the most humane methods are employed to prosecute various fisheries throughout Europe, will he recognise, as I do, that many fishermen have chosen to employ other methods which take them away from the quota system, and will he respond to requests that compensation be afforded to the very few tuna drift net fishermen who will be damaged by any measures to ban their fishery so as to assist them to retrain and invest in other forms of fishery and remain off quota?
    Mr. Morley: At the Fisheries Council last week, I made it clear that, under the United Kingdom presidency, the British Government will progress with proposals which have been lying on the table since 1992 to phase out high seas drift nets in EU waters, especially because of the impact on dolphins and non-target species. I also said then that we realised that this would have an impact on those fishermen who are involved in that fishery, and of course their interests and needs will be taken into consideration. I have already received representations from Mike Townsend of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, who has argued the interests of his members very strongly.
    Mr. Jack: Will the Minister confirm that, due to the Prime Minister's failure in negotiating the Amsterdam treaty, that treaty contains no legal protection for British fishermen threatened as a result of quota hopping? Can he also confirm that what was negotiated in the form of an exchange of letters between Commission President Santer and the Prime Minister amounts in effect to nothing more than is already contained in category A licences as far as landings are concerned?
    Can the Minister explain why, although he has been in conversation with the fishing industry since August about matters of enforcement and quota hopping, the industry is still waiting for a definitive statement of Government policy on these vital matters? Is that not a vivid illustration of the fact that his policy is a shambles?
    Mr. Morley: The Conservative Government put forward totally bogus proposals to deal with quota
    384
    hopping. They made proposals to try to deal with the issue in the intergovernmental conference, knowing that just one country could veto those proposals. Not only that, but not one other country supported the Government's position. We have made more progress to deal with quota hopping in six months than the Conservative Government made in their last decade in office. We shall make announcements about our policy on the fishing industry in due course, but we have been undertaking a proper consultation with the fishing industry to obtain its views and to involve it in decisions in a way that the previous Government failed to do.

    Cattle Breeders
    6. Mr. Swayne: What representations he has received from breeders of traditional native breeds of cattle with slow rates of growth. [12614]
    Mr. Rooker: I have received a small number of representations from breeders of such animals.
    Mr. Swayne: Is the Minister aware that ecologists agree that the best way to maintain the unique character of the New Forest is to have it grazed by suckler cows? Is he also aware that, because of the quality of the ground, such beasts will be in their third year before they can be sold as store? Will he therefore distance himself from the disgraceful remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture on Tuesday when he accused farmers of cheating on the schemes for compensation for BSE?
    Mr. Rooker: I will attempt to address the hon. Gentleman's question of substance, because there is a genuine problem for breeders of native breeds of cattle with slow rates of growth such as Galloway, Welsh black and Highland. The beef assurance scheme was fixed up so that such cattle can come to market at between 30 and 42 months. I regret that there are only 73 registered members of that scheme, so it has not been a success. That does not meet the issues raised in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but it meets those raised in his original question of substance.
    Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is completely right to say that it is a genuine problem. Will the Ministry take into account not only any romantic advantage of Highland or other special breeds but their value to the gene pool? Will the Ministry look at the issue from the point of view of long-term genetic advantage to the British cattle herd?
    Mr. Rooker: I do not know how many of the 73 herds in the scheme are in Scotland, but my hon. Friend's point is correct. One of the reasons for the beef assurance scheme was to ensure that farmers with special breeds did not suffer and that the nation did not suffer by losing those breeds.
    Mr. Paice: Does the Minister accept that the three breeds that he just cited are all hill breeds? Is it not absolute drivel for the Minister to suggest that the problems of hill farming are related purely to the beef ban? Does he not know or even care that the prices of fat cattle, store cattle and lambs are now much lower than they were 12 months ago, which was well after the ban was introduced? Does he not know that the prices of store

    385
    cattle and sheep are now lower than when he took responsibility for the industry? Is it not true that that is because of the Government's policy of keeping sterling so high, which is destroying our sheep exports and encouraging beef imports? What will he do now about the proposals to end the intervention for beef, which would only mean more imports into this country and even lower cattle prices for our native breeds and all others?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the illusion that we are not living in a market economy.

    Diet and Nutrition
    Mr. Cousins: What assessment he has made of variations in diet and nutrition between the regions of England; and what role the Food Standards Agency will have to investigate them. [12616]
    Mr. Rooker: The Department assesses regional variations in the diet of the British population using the continuous national food survey and, with the Department of Health, the national diet and nutrition survey programme.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister agree that the consumption of fruit, vegetables and salad is lower in the northern region of England than in other parts of England? Does he agree that that is a matter not just of individual choice but of social exclusion from good diet because people find themselves on low incomes, with no cars and facing high-cost food? Will he assure the House that the Food Standards Agency will do some proactive work and contribute to the Government's policy on social exclusion so that diet is also considered when we talk about social exclusion?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right to say that the consumption of certain foods varies on a regional basis. More up-to-date figures will be published on 10 November in the next national food survey. A special analysis of regional data is contained in that report.
    On my hon. Friend's second point, the Food Standards Agency will play a key role in advising on nutrition and diet issues, working with the Department of Health. That will be made abundantly clear in the White Paper later this month.
    Mr. Paterson: As there is a variation in the incidence of tuberculosis in badgers in the different regions of Britain, can the Minister say whether the Government have any policy on that matter? Farms have been closed—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This question does not relate to badgers; it is about nutrition in the regions.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does the Minister accept that an important element in nutrition can be vitamin supplements? Is he aware of the dismay among many alternative and complementary medical practitioners and nutritionists about the ban on over-10 mg vitamin B6? Does he accept that, across the industry, most people believe that 100 mg is perfectly safe? Is not the advice that the hon. Gentleman has accepted fundamentally flawed, having been based on a 10-year-old survey largely
    386
    dealing with animals? Much more recent information is now available. Will he reconsider the matter, which is causing much concern among those who are trying to improve the health of the nation?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point, but I invite him to re-read the further information that he has received—as, indeed, has every hon. Member. The advice was not taken on the basis of one scientific paper—more than 100 have been assessed.
    The point that needs to be made abundantly clear to everyone, especially those outside the House, is that in respect of dietary supplements we are acting on the basis of food law. If people want to take them on health grounds, there is health law covering that, but I am not dealing with that.

    Radioactive Material (Dumping At Sea)
    Mr. Hanson: If he will make a statement on progress into investigations into the dumping of radioactive material at sea. [12617]
    Mr. Rooker: The searches to identify any unrecognised dumping of radioactive waste at sea have now been completed, apart from those at the Ministry of Defence, where they are unlikely to be completed this year, I regret. Only one further instance of such dumping has been identified in addition to those I announced in July this year. This concerns the disposal of radioactive miss-distance indicators by the Royal Air Force in the Holyhead deep in 1974.
    The details of that disposal have been passed to the National Radiological Protection Board and have been included in its independent assessment of all the disposals. I expect to receive the board's report and to announce its findings very shortly.
    We have throughout kept fully informed all the territorial Departments of Government, as well as the Government of the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Jack: That was a statement
    Mr. Rooker: The question asked for a statement.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend both for his comments today and for his statement in July. That brought to light, for the first time, unacceptable practices undertaken under previous Governments to dump radioactive material at sea—including in Liverpool bay, off the north Wales coast, near my constituency.
    Will my hon. Friend continue with open government and bring forward any relevant proposals? When the board's recommendations are made and the details are known, will he put them before the House so that we can understand what happened under previous Governments?
    Mr. Rooker: The matter will be dealt with openly, and the report published.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is the Minister aware that radioactive contamination at sea also comes from nuclear establishments? Is he further aware that, as recently as

    387
    October, contamination from the Dounreay plant resulted in the closure of a nearby fishery, which, to my knowledge, is still closed?
    Mr. Rooker: I am aware of that. One reason why that contamination was discovered was the constant surveillance of our seashore for contaminants. It is a crucial and continuing process. Action will be taken when contaminants are found.

    Beef
    Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement about the level of confidence of the British public in British beef. [12618]
    Mr. O'Hara: What steps he is taking to improve confidence in British beef. [12619]
    13. Mr. Beith: If he will make a statement about the current state of the beef sector. [12622]
    Dr. John Cunningham: Numerous Government initiatives have helped to secure significant improvements in the beef consumption level, indicating a return of consumer confidence. However, the European beef sector remains in long-term structural surplus. The Government are pressing for fundamental reform of the EU beef regime through negotiations on the Commission's agenda 2000 proposals.
    Mr. Pickthall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he go on to tell us whether he detects greater confidence in British beef among our European partners, and how that confidence might be manifested in policy or regulation changes?
    Dr. Cunningham: We have been working hard to re-establish confidence not only in British beef but in the British Government's contribution to open and constructive dialogue in the affairs of the European Union, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament. Two of our proposals are now under consideration in Brussels to lift partially the ban on British beef. The first is the certified herd scheme, and the second is the date-based scheme. It will be for the various committees of the Brussels Commission to make decisions on those schemes. I keep urging them to press ahead, without further delay.
    Mr. O'Hara: The over-30-months scheme is one of the measures that has contributed greatly to raising confidence in British beef, but it has many faults. Will the Minister conduct an investigation into the scheme's workings, with particular reference to geographical distribution of abattoirs in the scheme? Apart from the commercial implications of uneven and inequitable distribution of abattoirs, there is an animal welfare consideration. Cattle—particularly casualty cattle—are having to travel unnecessarily long distances to slaughter.
    Dr. Cunningham: Administration of the scheme is dealt with by the Intervention Board executive agency. However, abattoirs have been chosen on the basis of competitive tender, hygiene performance and geographical location. I realise that the over-30-months
    388
    scheme is not universally popular and that there are some problems with it—not least that it is one of the single most expensive schemes in which we are engaged in dealing with the BSE crisis. I will reflect on what my hon. Friends have to say. As I have made clear to the House, however, detailed administration of the scheme is a matter not for me but for the Intervention Board.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that beef farmers in Northumberland have had animals transported from Northumberland to Cornwall for slaughter under the scheme and also face those transport costs? Does he realise that those beef farmers are also facing continued competition from imported beef, which still does not have to meet the standards that we set for our own beef product? Today, he has already admitted that hill beef farmers are facing particular difficulties. Does he realise that those difficulties are relevant to his decisions about hill livestock compensatory allowances?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I recognise the first problem mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, because he wrote to me about it. I said that I thought that that type of situation was clearly unsatisfactory, and that it should also be unnecessary.
    As for beef imports, the House will recall that I made it clear both in the Chamber and in Brussels that, if the European Union Council of Ministers did not act to apply a uniform policy on removal of specified risk materials in beef across the entire European Union, I would act unilaterally to prevent imports from the European Union that had not been so treated into the United Kingdom. We were successful in winning on that issue in the negotiation by a single vote.
    In July, however, I made it clear that it would be necessary for me to make a concession to win that vote. The concession was that implementation would take effect not on 1 October 1997—as it would have done had I acted unilaterally—but from 1 January 1998. That concession was necessary to win the argument in the Council by eight votes to seven.
    I know that, for a very long time, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has represented hundreds, if not thousands, of hill beef farmers. I have represented many such farmers, although for a slightly longer time. We both know the problems very well. I say again that, this year, there will be £450 million-worth of direct support for farmers in the beef sector, and that we are spending colossal sums in trying to resolve the problems that they face, particularly from BSE. The solution to the problem is not more subsidy, as Conservative Members seem to think, but to solve the problems that are of their creation—first, BSE—and of over-capacity in Europe's beef sector.
    Mrs. Spelman: Given that red meat consumption has fallen by 25 per cent. in the past 20 years and yet, in the same period, the incidence of colon cancer has increased by 20 per cent., will the Minister explain why he has given his full support to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report which recommends a further reduction in red meat consumption? Is not that one more nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom's red meat industry, which is already in crisis?
    Dr. Cunningham: The COMA report has not been published in full, so I advise the hon. Lady to wait and

    389
    see what it says. If the Government appoint independent scientific committees—the previous Government did the same—to assess risk to people in respect of health and other matters, those committees sometimes reach uncomfortable conclusions. There is no point in our wishing away those conclusions because that simply destroys the integrity and independence of such committees.
    Mr. Nicholls: It is not going to be possible to restore confidence in British beef if there are no British beef producers left. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his failure to match the previous Government's commitment to make a payment of £60 million—indeed, he intends to reduce it—has caused real fear and terror among hill farmers? Does he not understand that to sneer that hill farmers are one of the less efficient sectors of the British industry, as he did earlier in these exchanges, means that he is devastating a vital part of our agricultural community and, at the same time, making it abundantly clear that he has no idea of the role that hill farmers play, not only in British beef production as a whole but environmentally? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman's deeds matched his rhetoric?
    Dr. Cunningham: One abiding reason that the House can rarely, if ever, take the hon. Gentleman seriously is that he has only one mode, and that is always over the top. Given the location of his constituency and mine, I suspect that I have far more regular contact, and on a much wider basis, with hill farmers than he ever does. He asked why I have not matched in the coming year the previous Government's commitment to support for HLCAs—the answer is that I have. We are working on the same proposals as the previous Government.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Race Hatred
    Mr. Gapes: How many prosecutions his office has sanctioned for incitement to racial hatred; and how many it has decided not to pursue in each year since 1990. [12640]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Since 1990, 41 consents have been granted for prosecution of incitement to racial hatred under part III of the Public Order Act 1986. Five applications for consent have been refused and one has been withdrawn. I am arranging for a breakdown to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Attorney-General share the widespread concern felt by people of all faiths and ethnic backgrounds about the dissemination of race-hate and anti-Semitic material, which is being widely distributed? Will he assure the House that the Government will do far more than their predecessors to act rigorously and with determination to take legal action against the producers of such material?
    The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that I will act vigorously to ensure that the behaviour that
    390
    he describes, which I am sure the whole House regards as repulsive, is dealt with. I hope that the police will continue vigorously to investigate any allegations of incitement to racial hatred. Where such inquiries result in submission of a file to the Crown Prosecution Service and where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the public interest will almost invariably justify proceedings, and I will accordingly give my consent.
    Mr. Burnett: The Government have announced their intention to provide extra penalties for a guilty party when racism is proved as a motivation for a crime. In order that the appropriate evidence may be gathered, what training resources and practice guidelines will be given to the police to secure a tangible result?
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made proposals to introduce new offences of racial violence. In my professional experience, the Court of Appeal has long said that such matters should be taken into account by sentencing judges. I am sure that the enshrining of such matters in statute will be welcome. The primary duty to investigate such complaints lies with the police, who will approach the problem vigorously, although so far the majority of identification has, successfully, been in the hands of the CPS.
    Mr. Grieve: In the first question to the Attorney-General, the suggestion was made that past Governments had been dilatory in prosecuting in racial hatred cases. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that decisions on whether to prosecute are for the Crown Prosecution Service—ultimately, they are matters for the Attorney-General, but they are usually taken by the CPS—and involve no political input?
    The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is a quasi-judicial function of my office. In the earlier years, from 1990, only two or three such consents were granted each year, but since 1995 there has been a rising curve, with seven in that year and numbers in double figures thereafter. Our best hope is that such matters will not arise, but if they do they will be approached quasi-judicially.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Flynn: What plans he has to extend the period allowed for appeals against apparently lenient sentences. [12641]
    The Attorney-General: The statutory time for an application for leave to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of undue leniency is 28 days. That is mandatory and cannot be extended. That strict time limit was imposed to meet the concern that it would be intolerable if those whose sentences were subject to a procedure had to endure a long period of uncertainty about whether it would be used. Any consideration given to extending the time limit would need to take account of those concerns, as well as the practical implications of any other changes in the regime.
    Mr. Flynn: The concerns of convicted murderers or other offenders obviously have to be taken into account,

    391
    but should we not also consider the anxiety and anger of the families of those who have suffered? I brought before the Attorney-General a murder case in which an apparently lenient sentence was given. The short period in which the processes have to be undertaken means that a decision often has to be made in the final hours of the final day. Is it not true that rushed judgments are often poor judgments?
    The Attorney-General: I have explained why there has to be a balance. There was great concern when the proposal was first brought into operation. Time is short, as I am sure my predecessor would be the first to agree. There are often only days for consideration perhaps only hours in some cases, although in only a few, I hope. However, the cases are considered in time. I hope that all hon. Members will do their best to disseminate the information that 28 days are available from sentence.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Yeo: What are the current staffing levels of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [12646]
    The Attorney-General: On 30 September 1997, the Crown Prosecution Service employed the full-time equivalent of 1,975.5 lawyers and 3,612 other staff, the majority of whom are case workers supporting lawyers at branch level to prepare cases for court.
    Mr. Yeo: Is the Attorney-General aware that unless there is an immediate and substantial increase in Crown Prosecution Service staffing levels, his Government's much-vaunted aim of speeding up the workings of the criminal justice system will be just one more item on the ever-growing list of Labour's broken promises?
    The Attorney-General: No. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the favour of recalling that we stated during the election campaign that we would put to the people—as we did successfully—the policy that in at least our first couple of years in office, we would operate within the spending constraints laid down by the previous Government. Within that policy, Sir lain Glidewell is conducting his review and I am sure that he will point out any difficulties that arise from the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service.
    Mr. Dismore: I visited my local Crown Prosecution Service branch during the summer and found there a highly motivated group of people working hard, obviously in trying circumstances. I was very pleased that when I raised a specific case, the service was prepared to review its decision and to agree to prosecute a case that it had previously not prosecuted. I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's point about the review by Sir lain Glidewell. When will it be completed?
    The Attorney-General: On the first matter, I welcome very much my hon. Friend's visit to his area office of the CPS. I hope that all hon. Members, when they were given the branch reports during the summer, were invited to visit their area office, and I hope that those visits were carried out.
    392
    I am glad to know that the Crown Prosecution Service listened to my hon. Friend's representations. Ultimately, however, the service has to have regard to the independence of the prosecutor in reaching its determination. On the last matter, I hope very much that Sir lain Glidewell's report will be published in the new year.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: 1 welcome what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said about the motivation and good quality of the Crown Prosecution Service in his area. In light of the Attorney-General's decision to put more senior staff into the front line in the sense of having 43 chief Crown prosecutors—one for each police area—is he satisfied that he has sufficient staff to carry out other functions, such as caring properly for victims and witnesses, about which I am sure he would have told us if he had had the opportunity? That requires not only motivation but staff, including support staff, to assist the Crown prosecutors in court on the day. In that context, will the Attorney-General liaise with the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there is somewhere for victims and witnesses to be cared for when the time comes?
    The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Victim support has a high priority. I am sure that, if there are deficiencies in the CPS in terms of staff, Sir lain Glidewell and his review team will point them out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has announced only recently that there will be additional money available for victim support. These are matters of great importance. Frequently, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are practical problems in ensuring that witnesses are properly informed and properly cared for in the courts. The Lord Chancellor is fully aware of that and of the importance of carrying out obligations under the victims charter. The CPS plays an important role, with the police, in ensuring that those obligations are carried out.
    Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to introduce local accountability in respect of the prosecution policy of the Crown Prosecution Service. [12647]
    The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service is already exposed to substantial local scrutiny. Each branch, for example, now publishes its own annual report, commencing for the calendar year 1996. We are taking the process further through the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service into 42 areas.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that answer, which touches on management if not accountability. Does he, however, understand the dismay and frustration of communities, such as those in the Martock and Wincanton areas of my constituency, when high-profile police action takes place and the result is either a decision not to prosecute or, worse still, no decision on whether to prosecute after more than 12 months? Does he agree that there is a need for far greater transparency and far greater local accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service?
    The Attorney-General: Matters involving the police are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    393
    As regards local accountability, I hope very much that the reports that were published in the hon. Gentleman's area in July set out and put in the shop window the activities of the CPS in his area for the past year. He is concerned with local accountability. I know that he was invited, with all other hon. Members representing the south-west—and, it is to be hoped, other areas as well—to visit his CPS branch in July. So far, I fear that he has not replied. I hope he will do so fairly quickly.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Attorney-General agree that accountability in the Crown Prosecution Service—in which I declare a family interest—is very much dependent on the quality of the people employed in it? The quality is undoubtedly very high. If we are to have consistency between one area and another, we must obviously have a central and not a local direction.
    The Attorney-General: The people at the coal face carry the primary responsibility to the public, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who tabled the question is concerned with something greater. Whether the CPS should be a national service and whether there should be local scrutiny in the form of committees,
    394
    such as a watch committee or a police committee, was debated in the House. The Philips report on that was rejected because it was felt that the paramount consideration should be the independence of the prosecutor as part of a national service.
    Mr. Greenway: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just confirmed the central point about which I wanted to ask him. Will he therefore assure the House that, in whatever changes his Government decide to implement to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS, its independence from local pressures will remain the central point of its operations?
    The Attorney-General: I took part in the debate when the Crown Prosecution Service was set up, and made loud and clear my view that there were difficulties as regards local accountability, which were enumerated by example. It is important that local communities are aware of what is happening. It is important that there is liaison at the highest level locally with the chief constable. It is important that local communities can discuss and debate whatever is happening—hence, I hope, as an input into the public domain, the branch reports. Further than that I will not go.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the business for next week.
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Bank of England Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government (Contracts) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual morning debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Debate on the modernisation of the House of Commons on a motion to approve the first report of the Modernisation Committee.
FRIDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [4th allotted day] [first part].
Debate until about 7 pm on a subject to be decided by the Liberal Democrats, which will be announced next week.
Motion to approve the eighth report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual morning debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill [first day].
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which we originally scheduled for Thursday next week. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Debate on the review of civil justice and legal aid on a motion for the Adjournment of the House
The House will also wish to know that, on Wednesday 12 November, there will be a debate on landfill waste sites in European Standing Committee A. On Wednesday 19 November, there will be a debate on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies: controls on cattle, sheep and goats, in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on the draft general budget for 1998 in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 12 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 6692/97, Landfill Waste Sites. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-iii (1997–98).
Wednesday 19 November:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 10047/97, TSE: Prohibition of Risk Material.
Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 155-iii (1997–98) and HC 155-iv (1997–98).
European Standing B—Relevant European Community Document: 10153/97, Draft General Budget 1998. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-iv (1997–98)
Thursday 2 November:
Public Accounts Committee Reports, Session 1996–97.

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

1

The office of Gas Supply: The Regulation of Gas Tariffs (The Gas Cost Index)

37

14 November

2

Progress in Completing the New British Library

38

20 November

3

The Sale of the Mining Operations of the British Coal Corporation

60

21 November

4

The Construction of Quarry House

69

27 November

5

Highways Agency: The Bridge Programme

83

28 November

6

The Audit of European Community Transactions

84

4 December

7

The Hospital Information Support Systems Initiative

97

5 December

8

Information Technology Services Agency: Outsourcing The Service Delivery Operations

98

11 December

9

Resource Accounting and Proposals for a Resource-based System of Supply

167

15 January

10

Excess Vote NI DHSS

19 February

11

Excess Votes Classes I, IV, VII, XIII, XIV, XVII (7&13)

293

13 February

12

ODA: Turkish Universities Equipment Project

70

27 February

13

H M Treasury: The Second Sale of Shares in National Power and PowerGen

151

6 March

14

Dept for Education & Employment: Financial Control of Payments made under the Training for Work and Youth Training Programmes in England

61

13 March

15

The Award of the First Three Passenger Rail Franchises

39

13 March

16

Office of Electricity Regulation, Office of Gas Supply: The Work of the Directors General of Telecommunications, Gas Supply, Water Services and Electricity Supply

89

19 March

17

Health of the Nation: A Progress Report

85

20 March

18

National Savings: Financial Reporting

214

25 March

19

Former Yorkshire Regional Health Authority

432

26 March

Report No:

Title

HC No.

Publication Date

20

Payments to the National Lottery Distribution Fund

99

27 March

21

The Management of Space in Higher Education Institutions in Wales

159

2 April

22

British Rail Maintenance Limited: The Sale of Maintenance Depots

168

3 April

23

Ministry of Defence: The Financial Management of the Military Operation in the Former Yugoslavia

242

4 April

24

Department of Transport: Freight Facilities Grants in England

284

8 April

25

Plymouth Development Corporation: Regularity Propriety and Control of Expenditure

450

8 April

REPLIES

Treasury Minute on the First to Eighth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97

CM 3559

12 February 1997

Treasury Minute on the Ninth Report from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97

CM 3577

12 March 1997

Treasury Minute on the Twelfth to Twenty-Fifth Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts 1996–97

CM 3714

16 July 1997

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. She will doubtless recall that last week my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked for a debate on the Government's policy on higher education. Despite two such debates this week and despite the Prime Minister's frantic consultation of his briefing notes yesterday, it became clear from his inability to answer a simple question on the matter that he does not understand Government policy on higher education.
Will she arrange for another debate, at a time when the Prime Minister can attend, so that he can grasp what is perfectly clear to the rest of us—that his policy will mean that Scottish and European Union students at Scottish universities have their fourth-year fees met from public funds, while English, Welsh and Northern Irish students do not? He will then be better equipped than he was yesterday to explain precisely how the situation that that policy has created contributes to his manifesto pledge of equal opportunity for all.
Will the right hon. Lady also arrange for an early debate on the Government's policy on the tobacco industry's sponsorship of sport? May we have an explanation from the Secretary of State for Health of the criteria applied by the Minister for Public Health in deciding that formula one racing should be exempted from the Government's much-vaunted ban on tobacco sponsorship? Was that decision based on the fact that formula one racing is more popular than angling, healthier than cricket or more accessible to many than darts—or were other considerations taken into account? In the interests of open government, we should be told.
May we have an early debate on open government, so that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Minister responsible for open government, can come out
398
of hiding to expand on his remarks to local media, reported in The Times on 20 October, that he is being forced out of office by a smear campaign conducted by a senior colleague? Such a debate would also enable him to explain to the House why he needed trips to the United States, Canada and Australasia to study open government. After all, his party's manifesto pledges should have meant that by now he was a member of one.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I really do think that the right hon. Lady's final remarks are ridiculous, coming from a member of Government who took no steps whatever in the direction of open government. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will make a statement in the House when he presents the White Paper on freedom of information, and I am sure that many hon. Members look forward to that.
On the subject of higher education, the right hon. Lady is right that we have had two debates recently, during which we heard no constructive suggestions from the Conservative party on how to deal with the problems in higher education that we inherited. If she is interested in the matter, she will be aware that education Question Time is next week, so any outstanding issues can be dealt with—not that there will be many.
The position on formula one sponsorship has been made clear, not least by the Prime Minister yesterday. Formula one is a genuinely global sport and it relies on tobacco advertising much more than any other sport, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said back in June and July when the issue was first considered. A European Union ban of the type suggested would lead to alternative circuits in other parts of the world taking the sport, and British viewers would still see it on television. Any ban imposed would thus be circumvented.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to return to the issue of higher education, which was raised by the shadow Leader of the House? What kind of legislative vehicle do the Government intend to use for the introduction of tuition fees? Will primary or secondary legislation be required? Irrespective of the vehicle to be used, will she give a firm guarantee that there will be a full and frank debate—preferably a full-day debate—in the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that primary legislation will be required. Therefore, there will be a Second Reading debate which, I would imagine, will be a full debate, as is normal.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we, at least, supported the previous policy on tobacco sponsorship of formula one, and we agree very much with the EU Social Affairs Commissioner who has said that the Government's decision is a disaster and a complete U-turn? We would welcome a statement.
An equally important issue is the fate of rape victims in court, to which the Home Secretary referred in a BBC interview this morning. When can we expect a statement on the legislation to be introduced? How quickly can it be introduced? May we be assured that the Home Secretary will not be as dilatory as the previous Government were in trying to deal with this serious problem?

399
Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that there will be a debate as soon as the Public Accounts Commission has considered the evidence of the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, who yesterday outlined the appalling level of bungling which all of us, as constituency Members, are still experiencing with that agency?
Finally, the Minister of Agriculture gave notice earlier in the week that the Government are actively considering our representations that there should be a full inquiry into not just the last 18 months of the BSE crisis, but the way in which it developed under the previous Government. When will we get an announcement on that inquiry?
Mrs. Taylor: To take the last point first, the hon. Gentleman himself pointed out what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said earlier in the week, and I have nothing to add to that.
On tobacco sponsorship, as I said a few moments ago, there is little point in having a ban that is counter-productive. If we drive the sport out of this country, people will still see the adverts on television because the pictures cannot be blocked.
I do not think that we can have a debate in the very near future on the important issue of rape victims, but we have made progress on the matter. The Home Secretary announced in June that he was establishing an urgent review to ensure that all vulnerable or intimidated witnesses received better treatment from the criminal justice system. That working group is taking evidence and we hope that it will be able to report to Ministers by the end of the year. Further statements will follow from that.
On the PAC and the inquiries into the CSA, I should be surprised if there is any hon. Member who has not experienced considerable difficulty in trying to pursue CSA cases on behalf of constituents. It is an appalling situation, and obviously there are very deep problems which will take some time to resolve.
Mr. Paul Flynn: There will be a warm welcome for today's announcement on the reduction in the number of animals killed in laboratories in Britain, but there will be some disappointment that the total of 3 million animals killed every year will be reduced by a mere couple of hundred. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that this complex matter can be discussed? Has she seen early-day motion 342?
[That this House notes with dismay that 400,000 animals are killed every year just to provide body parts for medical research when many scientists agree that test-tube studies using donated human tissue give more reliable results, but that lack of availability prevents its widespread use; urges that donated human tissue be used wherever possible to save animals and achieve more accurate results; and calls upon the Government to establish and co-ordinate a national network of human tissue banks to overcome the shortage of suitable human tissue and to introduce a new donor card that gives the public the option of donating organs for transplantation and/or tissue for research.]
A debate would enable us, as a superior species, to decide that it is unacceptable for us to treat sentient living creatures as if they were jars of chemicals in experiments designed not to improve human health, but to increase the profits of commercial industries.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, although I cannot promise an early debate. He is right to say that there is a great deal of public concern about testing on animals, and that is why the statement from the Home Office today about the end to cosmetic testing on animals will be welcomed. My hon. Friend should give credit for the significant step forward that has been made on cosmetic testing.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Leader of the House next week revisit her answer on Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the Finance Bill? I realise that it was an oral answer given in the heat of the moment, but she gave the impression that this year's treatment would become par for the course. That would cause alarm in the City of London.
Mrs. Taylor: Pro rata, this year's Finance Bill had as much time as the Bills of previous years, so I do not think that our treatment of that Bill was unprecedented.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider my request for a Members' cycle allowance yet? Does she think that a debate on Members' travel allowances would be helpful?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that it will be possible to have a debate, but I hope that we can make some progress on the cycle allowance in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House make time next week for a debate on the European Union proposal to do away with duty-free allowances for travel between EU countries? Would it not be an excellent opportunity to put pressure on the Government, before the Luxembourg Council, to get the European Union to do something about that and to change its mind? Otherwise, will not the measure have an adverse affect on British carriers, particularly those operating out of Heathrow, which is the borough in which my constituency lies, and on many enterprises such as the British Airports Authority and others with duty-free shops that provide badly needed employment?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made his point in such a way that he does not need a debate.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time between now and Christmas to cause a debate to be held on Government computers, so that we could cause the computers that serve the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue to talk to each otherso that we might know who is in the black economy and who is not-and perhaps at the same —time consider the quality of the Department of Trade and Industry computer, which appears to be giving the wrong answers at present?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there are too many wrong answers, but there was certainly an example last

401
week when one of my hon. Friends had to correct figures on export licences given during the previous Administration because of computer faults. I understand that that programme has been scrapped.
Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the working of the Department of Trade and Industry, because it is a well-known fact that a number of Ministers there are disqualified from speaking on certain subjects due to conflicts of interest? May we know who is competent to do what—if any?
Mrs. Taylor: All the Ministers there are extremely competent.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In response to the question from the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) about interests, I think that the Tories have got a cheek to be talking about people with interests, when 90 or 100 out of 164 of them have got three and four moonlighting jobs. If we are to have a debate, let us have one about that. On the more important question, because they are a trivial lot, I heard my right hon. Friend refer to the Child Support Agency as being in an appalling mess. That is an interesting phrase from a Minister. I know that a review is taking place and we all know that there are problems, that it has been in operation for five years and that at the beginning it was argued that it would provide benefits for women in particular. We all now know that as many women as men object to the Child Support Act 1995. Can we have an assurance that, perhaps, the idea of scrapping that Act is on the cards?
Mrs. Taylor: No, it is a question not of scrapping the Child Support Agency, but of reviewing its workings. We had a debate just before the summer recess and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said afterwards that she had found it extremely useful to hear directly the experiences of many colleagues in respect of the problems of the CSA. I hope that we can ensure that the agency works more effectively, but, as I said, the problems are very severe indeed. A great backlog of work has not been completed when it should have been and, although my right hon. Friend is trying to resolve the situation, it is difficult to see that it and the problems that are arising can be dealt with in the very near future. It will be a long haul to get the agency back on track.
Mr. Tony Baldry: May we have a debate next week on inward investment? There seems to be some friction between the Scottish Office and the Department of Trade and Industry about who is to take the lead on the matter. There is the curious concept of a concordat. Is that to be in writing? Will it be promulgated? How will it be umpired if there are disputes? How will problems be resolved within the machinery of government?
Will the Scottish Parliament be responsible for inward investment into Scotland, or the Welsh Assembly for that into Wales? How will all that be reconciled within the machinery of government, especially as there is obvious friction between the Scottish Office and the DTI? It would be helpful to have a debate as soon as possible, so that we could all have a clear understanding of who is doing what.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is a need for an early debate, because there is no such friction. The matter
402
concerning the Scottish Parliament was dealt with to some extent in the White Paper, and will be dealt with further when a Bill is introduced and we debate it.
Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to providing time for a debate on the Child Support Agency, bearing in mind two cases in my surgery last week? In the first case, a father has been asked to pay an exorbitant and impractical sum that he clearly cannot afford; in the second, a mother informs me that all her efforts to get maintenance for her child have been to no avail, despite the intervention of the CSA. Is not that an illustration, on both sides, of the CSA simply not working? It is causing tremendous difficulties, despite having been in existence for several years.
Mrs. Taylor: I, too, have cases like those that my hon. Friend described—we all find that a significant proportion of our case work concerns CSA cases—so I have every sympathy with him. However, I am not sure that debating the problems will get us much further. Action is needed within the CSA to get its house in order.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an early debate on the Government's programme for convergence of our economy with those of our European partners, so that we can move as swiftly as the Government want towards a European currency? Such a debate would give the Chancellor the opportunity to explain to the House how today's increase in interest rates contributes to that convergence process.
Mrs. Taylor: The Chancellor dealt more than adequately with all those questions in his recent statement. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to debate the subject, I am sure that many in his own party would be willing to oblige.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Can my right hon. Friend give us any information about when legislation for regional development agencies will be introduced, bearing in mind how important that is to the Government? Perhaps the Bill could be introduced in draft form, to allow people to consider it fully, given its implications and the various views that are held on it.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand my hon. Friend's long-term interest in the legislation. I do not think that it will be possible to introduce the Bill in draft form, but Ministers in the Department intend to introduce a White Paper.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the environment and planning procedure? I cannot believe that my constituency experience is unique. A cement manufacturer applied to the county council for permission for major quarrying work. The council hummed and hawed for more than a year, then passed the matter to the Minister for the Environment, so that either he could approve it or, if he did not want to do so, it would be approved after a five-week stay of execution.
The Minister had the opportunity to hold a public inquiry to allow the people of Clitheroe, Chatburn and Worston, and tourists who come to the Ribble Valley from all over the country, to have their say about the

403
major impact of a quarry that will take 30 years to dig and will be the size of 28 football pitches, but he did not do so, so the application will be approved by gagging people not only in the Ribble Valley but throughout the country.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case. I do not know the details of the planning application to which he refers, but any procedures followed were those drawn up by the previous Conservative Government.
Ms Gisela Stuart: In view of the incontrovertible evidence, which appeared in The Independent today, of the permanent damage caused by the use of Ecstasy, may we have an early debate on the subject?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises a problem which will be of concern to many. The evidence presented today on the dangers of Ecstasy reinforces some of the concerns that have been mentioned in the past. We should welcome any contribution to the body of scientific knowledge on the dangers of such drugs. In recent years, about 60 deaths in the UK have been due specifically to Ecstasy. The only message that we can send out is that young people should not be taking such drugs.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate, or at least a statement, on the time that Ministers take to reply, or give full replies, to hon. Members' questions? I understand that Departments try to answer such letters within 15 working days, but I cannot be alone in having letters outstanding for, in one case, 55 working days and, in another, involving the Treasury, for 47 working days—and still no reply yet. I understand that Ministers receive many letters from hon. Members, but if we are to do our jobs properly, we need to respond to our constituents' concerns rather quicker than that.
Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman gives me details of the replies that are outstanding, I shall look into the matter.
Mr. Martin Salter: After yesterday's crash landing at Heathrow, is my right hon. Friend aware of the mounting public concern about aircraft safety, particularly in the Thames valley, following three near misses during the past few months, including one above Reading? Will she allow parliamentary time for us to discuss this important issue and, in particular, the Civil Aviation Authority's hare-brained scheme to reduce the distance between aircraft approaching Heathrow from 3 miles to two and a half miles?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the pilot of the aircraft which was in such difficulties yesterday and which he managed to land safely. It is appalling to think of the tragedy that could have occurred. We should be grateful that he was able to exercise such skill on that occasion.
My hon. Friend raises the problem of near misses, which is obviously an issue of great concern to him and his constituents. I regret that I cannot find time for a
404
debate on that subject in the near future, but it may be an appropriate subject for a debate on a Wednesday morning, were he fortunate enough to have such an application accepted.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: May we have an early statement from the Minister for Public Health to clear up the apparent conflict of interest between her family interests and her decision to exempt formula one motor racing from tobacco advertising?
It is also a matter of concern that the Financial Times was briefed by the Department of Health's press office to say that the issue had been cleared with Lord Nolan. As it happens, Lord Nolan appeared before the Select Committee for Public Administration this morning and when I asked him whether he had any knowledge of that, he said that he had none whatever. He said that the first that he had heard of it was when he read the Financial Times this morning. May we have an urgent statement from the Minister for Public Health to clear up both those matters?
Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to clarify the situation and deal with the hon. Gentleman's point. When my hon. Friend became the Minister for Public Health she did exactly what was expected of her, which was to abide completely by the guidance which is laid down for Ministers. Her husband informed the Department of Health of his professional activities relating to formula one motor racing and, in order to avoid any possible conflict of interest and at his own suggestion, he resigned his position as a non-executive director of Benetton Formula Ltd.
As a result of that experience, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health wrote to Sir Robin Butler on 9 June explaining the arrangements that she had agreed with the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary to ensure that there was no conflict of interest between her official duties and her husband's interests. My hon. Friend wrote that letter to draw Sir Robin's attention to what she perceived was a lack of specific guidance on the private interests of a Minister's spouse in the version of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" that had been issued under the previous Government in 1992. That document was being updated at the time, and paragraph 116 of the ministerial code issued in July 1997 covered the point. It draws attention to the need for Ministers to have regard to their spouse's, as well as to their own, private interests. My hon. Friend has been absolutely open, and has obeyed both the letter and the spirit of the code of conduct.
Mr. Phil Hope: As a member of the Public Accounts Select Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the need for an urgent debate on the appalling performance of the Child Support Agency? The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reveals that 85 per cent. of outstanding balances were in error, and one in six of those were errors of more than £1,000. That has caused enormous misery and distress to families throughout the country. I believe that a debate on the Floor of the House would enable hon. Members who deal with these problems to contribute to the change process that is required. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the

405
agency cannot even find the right files to deal with cases, and said as much to the Public Accounts Committee this week?
Mrs. Taylor: As I said, I cannot promise a debate, but the information that my hon. Friend has conveyed to the House reinforces the concern that many hon. Members have expressed today. The figures are extremely alarming, and I am aware of the significant concern in the House about the matter. The Secretary of State for Social Security shares that concern, and I will ensure that she understands the strength of feeling that has been expressed today. I am sure that she will be reinforced in her determination to tackle this problem.
Mr. Tim Yeo: If the conduct of the Minister for Public Health is irreproachable, why is the Leader of the House so reluctant to grant the House a debate on the important and topical issue of tobacco sponsorship? Such a debate would enable the Government to explain to millions of sports fans why their preferred sport is being treated so much less favourably than motor racing.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against any ban, whereas some of his hon. Friends were almost arguing for a total ban. There seems to be some inconsistency. I do not think that there is any need for an early debate on that topic.
Mr. Mike Gapes: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention the "two minutes" campaign of the Royal British Legion, and ask her to consult the relevant authorities in the House on whether it would be possible for all Committees to observe two minutes' silence on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure which Committees will be sitting at that time next Tuesday. I shall make inquiries along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, because I know that all hon. Members consider it to be an important event and may wish to observe two minutes' silence in Committee, as they would if they were working in their offices.
Madam Speaker: The Leader of the House may like to know that I have asked all Departments of the House to observe two minutes' silence at that time. It is up to each individual, but I hope that it will be observed throughout the House, as it will in my Department.
Mr. Edward Leigh: As a former member of the Greater London council, may I ask the right hon. Lady whether she agrees with me that the electors of London are capable of differentiating between a Greater London authority and a mayor, and should be allowed to vote for one, but not necessarily for the other? While she is on her feet, will she confirm that current Members of Parliament who happen to be former leaders of the GLC will be allowed to stand for the position of mayor of London?
Mrs. Taylor: I would not dream of suggesting who might or might stand for that position, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the legislation and the result of the referendum are likely to be successful.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Further to what was said by the hon. Member for Banbury
406
(Mr. Baldry), is the Leader of the House aware that the President of the Board of Trade has said that she wishes to oversee inward investment in Scotland? She currently does not have that power. Is it not strange that she should seek to take powers to the Department of Trade and Industry, while the Government are seeking to devolve those same powers to the new Scottish Parliament? May we have a debate on the subject?
Mrs. Taylor: As I said earlier, there is no conflict between the Ministers involved, because our overall objective must be to improve inward investment in Britain as a whole. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to explore those specific points when we debate the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect to see the Welsh and Scottish Bills? As has already been pointed out on a couple of occasions, there is confusion about why the Government should be seeking to devolve power on the one hand, and to recentralise decisions on inward investment on the other. Seeing the Bills would give us an early opportunity to discuss the ever-increasing turf war between Cabinet Ministers, and the ever-diminishing roles which are now humiliating the Secretary of State for Scotland and pushing the Secretary of State for Wales towards a very welcome resignation.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asked when he would be able to see the Bills. He has seen the White Papers, as have the people of Scotland and Wales. That is why they supported our proposals. The Bills are not ready yet, but a great deal of work has been done. I am happy to report that there has been good progress on the legislation, and it will be produced in due course.
Mr. John Bercow: As a number of Members experienced long delays before receiving answers to their letters to Department of Trade and Industry Ministers when the House was not sitting, will the Leader of the House invite the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House next week, explaining exactly when she and her ministerial colleagues were and were not in the Department during the summer recess?
Mrs. Taylor: I would not comment on the holidays that Conservative Members—or, indeed, hon. Members in any party—have had, but I know that Ministers worked extremely hard throughout the recess. That is why the Government are in such a strong position now. I shall not comment on the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman, not least because it was raised with you on Tuesday, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May we have an emergency debate on agriculture, so that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can come to the House and explain the outrageous remarks that he made on Tuesday, when he accused the farming community of being both lazy and cheats?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here for MAFF questions, but I do not think that there are any outstanding problems. Certainly, emergency debates are not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day

  Supreme Court (Offices) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is short, and modest in its scope. Indeed, it might be characterised as a technical adjustment to the machinery of government. It does, however, concern an office of great importance. I believe that some reasonably detailed explanation of its background and effect will help the House to understand the need for the Bill itself, and for it to make rapid progress.
  For technical reasons, the Bill's title refers to offices of the Supreme Court, but it concerns solely the Lord Chancellor's Department. Within living memory, that Department was a very small organisation staffed almost exclusively by lawyers, but it is now a major Department of State, with a wide range of responsibilities, including overall responsibility for the court system as a whole, as well as the legal aid system.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this stage, but he used the phrase "rapid progress" a moment ago. I wonder whether he will explain quite what lies behind that phrase. Does it mean that there will be any deviation from the normal process of scrutiny of legislation by the House, or will the process take place in the normal way?
  Madam Speaker: That seemed to me more like an intervention than a point of order, but perhaps the Minister will tell us the answer.
  Mr. Hoon: Obviously, procedure is a matter for the House to decide, but in due course I shall invite the House, if it considers it appropriate, to deal with all stages of the Bill. As I say, that is clearly a matter for the House. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that it was announced in the House on Thursday that all stages would be taken today.
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
  The Department's budget is more than £2 billion, and it has a staff of more than 11,000. Selection of the Department's permanent secretary, however, is still constrained by restrictions first imposed when the permanent secretary headed an organisation of five officials.
  The present restrictions prevent anyone from being considered for appointment as permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor who is not either a barrister or solicitor of at least 10 years' standing, or a civil servant with at least five years' experience in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The purpose of the Bill is to remove those restrictions, so that future appointments may be made from the widest field of possible candidates.
  408
  The post of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor dates back to 1885. Before that, the Lord Chancellor was assisted by a principal secretary who was an officer of the Supreme Court. The principal secretary's duties were political as well as legal, and he was appointed by the Lord Chancellor personally, and generally left office along with the Lord Chancellor.
  In 1885, however, the existing principal secretary became a permanent officer, and his political duties devolved to a private secretary, leaving the permanent secretary with duties which were largely legal. It was agreed by the Treasury that these duties required a legal qualification for their proper performance, and that the permanent secretary should be a barrister of at least seven years' standing, which was later raised to 10 years, and was enshrined in statute in 1925.
  As I have said, the Lord Chancellor's Office at that time was very small, and the permanent secretary performed many legal duties. It was appropriate that the permanent secretary should always be a lawyer while the Lord Chancellor's Office remained a small organisation without significant administrative duties, as it did for many years. However, after the Courts Act 1971, the Lord Chancellor assumed overall responsibility for the administration of the court system as a whole, and the organisation was restructured as the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I hope that I understand the Minister correctly. He is saying that, because the Lord Chancellor's Department now controls a budget of £2 billion or more, it wants the widest possible choice in the appointment of a permanent secretary and the ability to go outside the civil service and the law, perhaps into industry and other such places, to get the most efficient and able man or woman for the job.
  Mr. Hoon: We are certainly proposing that the present restrictions should be eliminated. They severely limit the availability of candidates.
  The present permanent secretary has restructured the Department around an administrative and policy-making core of officials, who get legal advice, when they need it, from a separately managed group comprising legally qualified civil servants headed by a legal adviser answering directly to the permanent secretary. Therefore, the old arrangement under which a small number of legally qualified staff undertook all duties, whether legal or administrative, has disappeared.
  With the ending of the old structure went the justification for requiring the permanent secretary to be a lawyer. This was recognised in part by changes made by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which allowed a non-lawyer with at least five years' experience in the Department to be considered for the post.
  Some concern was expressed during the passage of that legislation in another place that it might presage some kind of downgrading of this important position. In case there are similar concerns about this Bill, I assure the House that the intention is quite the opposite. It is precisely because of the importance of the post and the qualities that it requires that its future holders should be the most able and experienced candidates available, selected from the widest possible field.
  Successive Lord Chancellors have been well served by a distinguished line of permanent secretaries, who have ably managed the organisation throughout the changes

  409
  that I have described. However, the existing restriction has no parallel for any other Department, and is no longer appropriate to what has, over the years, become a major Department of State, with a large budget and staff and a wide range of responsibilities.
  Furthermore, in addition to the expansion of functions and changes in the structure of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities as a member of the Government have greatly expanded.
  The Lord Chancellor now chairs the Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation Committee, responsible for the Government's legislative programme, and all the Cabinet Sub-Committees concerned with the Government's programme for constitutional change, as well as serving on numerous other committees. Together with the more specifically legal and departmental concerns, these additional responsibilities emphasise the necessity for the Lord Chancellor to have the advice and assistance of a permanent secretary of the highest quality and experience, selected from the widest possible field of candidates.
  The effect of the existing restrictions, however, is to limit the field to such an extent that there is available across the entire senior civil service only a handful of officials who are of the seniority and experience ordinarily required of a permanent secretary and who also fulfil the existing statutory criteria for the office of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor. It is therefore imperative that those restrictions be removed.
  The Bill therefore simply removes from schedule 2 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 the reference to the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. That has the effect of removing from that office special provisions which are, by virtue of sections 88 and 92 of the 1981 Act, applied to certain offices of the Supreme Court set out in schedule 2.
  As well as removing the restriction on appointment to the office, that will result in provisions concerning tenure of the office no longer applying to it, so that the provisions governing the retirement age of the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary will be brought into line with those applicable to other permanent secretaries.
  The Bill does not affect the office of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor in any other way. In particular, the permanent secretary will continue to hold the office of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and to be the head of the permanent staff of the Crown Office, which supports the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as Keeper of the Great Seal. No other office is affected.
  The present permanent secretary, who has already been persuaded to remain in office longer than originally planned, is to retire in April 1998. To give time for his successor to be properly selected, the existing statutory restrictions must be removed by the end of the year.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Minister assist me with this point, which I may have missed in his explanation? Is he saying that, if the legislation that he now proposes becomes law, the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department will continue to be Clerk to the Crown in Chancery; and if so, does not that second office have a requirement that its holder be a lawyer?
  Mr. Hoon: The answers to the hon. Member's questions are yes and no. It is anticipated that the
  410
  permanent secretary will continue to be Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. That position does not require the office-holder to be a lawyer.
  Mr. Taylor: Thank you.
  Mr. Hoon: To meet the timetable that I have set out, the Bill must make rapid progress, and it is for that reason that I ask the House to give it a fair wind, and allow it, if appropriate, not only to be read a second time but to pass through its remaining stages in the House today, so that it may be considered in another place with the necessary dispatch.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1997.
  Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Act 1997.
  4.17 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I listened with care to what the Parliamentary Secretary said in opening the case for the Bill, and we are anxious to give the Bill a fair wind, up to a point. He pointed out that the office of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor is one of great importance. I entirely agree, and I am sure that he intended to say that it had been an office of great importance throughout the decades and, indeed, the centuries that it has existed.
  Mr. Hoon indicated assent.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is nodding to that. He added that the Lord Chancellor's Department has grown greatly in recent years. It has taken on an active role and responsibility for the court services in a way that makes it a Department of State in a late-20th-century manner, which to a considerable extent in earlier years it was not.
  That means, however, that the Department has two important functions. It has the important function of being the right-hand man or woman to the Lord Chancellor in his ancient office—and his office is almost unique to this country, and extremely important to our constitution. Montesquieu might be turning in his grave, but I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and I would stand up firmly for our constitution. His office is unique in that it is there to protect the separation of powers, not to overturn it.
  What is said against us by those from other countries is that, because we have a senior Minister—one of the four most senior Ministers in any Government—who is a member of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, we do not respect the separation of powers. We do. In our pyramidal form of constitution, the Lord Chancellor is answerable to Parliament—the highest court in the land—and therefore is answerable to every Member of this House and of the other place for the proper performance of his duties, which include the protection of the true separation of the powers of the judiciary.

  411
  We are willing and very ready to assist the passage of this Bill, subject to some modifications, because, with the added administrative functions of the Lord Chancellor, there will from time to time be a perfectly good case for the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor being other than a lawyer. It is highly desirable that, if he is to be somebody other than a lawyer, he should have had substantial departmental experience. The present law enables him to be permanent secretary and Clerk to the Crown in Chancery if he has had five years' experience in the Department.
  I think that that should be long enough for the present Government. The Bill seeks to sweep that away, and to say, in effect, that somebody with no experience of the Department can become permanent secretary.
  There are dangers in that, on which I will dwell shortly. The great importance of that ancient office means that the Lord Chancellor needs help in relation to his responsibility for the judiciary. One of his major roles is to appoint the judiciary. It is a role that Lord Chancellors of every political colour have carried out scrupulously over the centuries, with the assistance of their Department. It is immensely valuable to the Lord Chancellor in that responsibility and in his role as a link with the judicial process and the legal structure and legal establishment of our country that the permanent secretary should have long and profound experience of the legal profession.
  A second aspect is the importance of the Government legal service. That service is 1,000 members strong. As the Attorney-General for five years, and Solicitor-General before that, I had the privilege of being responsible for that service, and I know that it consists of many people of high calibre. Some of them move within and across Departments.
  There has been a trend in recent years for them to move more into the Lord Chancellor's Department than in the past. It is highly healthy that Government lawyers should move in and out of that Department and spend a period, from time to time, advising the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney-General or one of the great Departments of State—and spend time in an administrative role running, for example, the Court Service.
  There are dangers here. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Lord Chancellor have introduced this Bill in good faith. This is not a party political matter, and I am not making party political points. I am making important constitutional points, because the Bill does not stand alone in the Government's legislation. We must look at it alongside the Bill introduced earlier this week to change the system of justices' clerks in magistrates courts. Following the Home Secretary's announcement, the role of the justices' clerk as the legal adviser to the magistrates is to be divorced from the role of the justices' clerk as the administrative controller of the magistrates court service.
  I have anxieties about that move. I only hope—I say this not to stray from the Bill, but to illustrate my point—that the Government will think again about that Bill. In practice—it is at a much more lowly level—I hope that we shall continue to find justices' clerks who have sat week in, week out, year in, year out, in service in court also moving up the administrative ladder.
  412
  Likewise, I hope that the lawyers in the Government legal service will move from advice-giving and legal roles to an administrative role—I think that the Minister has some sympathy with my argument—so that the administrators will know what they are talking about. Then, when they help to organise the list—we must remember that listing of court cases is a judicial function, and must remain so—and assist in the judicial running of the service, they will know what they are talking about. They will have sat in court and seen how cases are operated.
  We need that sort of cross-fertilisation in the Department—
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will elaborate on his remarks. I was worried when I heard the Minister say that the Lord Chancellor's Department is just the same as any other Department of State and that we should therefore treat the permanent secretary in just the same way in terms of more open recruitment and so on.
  But is not the Lord Chancellor's Department unique, in that it deals with important judicial matters? That cannot really be said of any other Department. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, from, his experience, that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot be lumped in with all the other Departments for this or any other purpose?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the Lord Chancellor's Department is unique, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend, and by me earlier in my speech. The Lord Chancellor is a unique Minister. When he sits in Cabinet, he has a more independent role than any other member of the Government. He, together with the Attorney-General, has a role in ensuring respect within government for the rule of law.
  In a free society, respect for the rule of law is as essential as, and historically much more deep-seated than, democracy itself. This country has believed in the rule of law and has operated it scrupulously from at least the end of the 17th century. We have built up a system of common and statute law by which all abide, and all Governments seek to abide.
  If the Government are to abide by the rule of law, they must be well advised on the law. That is why I emphasise the importance of the Government legal service. It is not only that the Government should have 1,000 lawyers, but that they should have 1,000 lawyers who are respected, whose status is comparable with those of other members of the public service, and who can expect, if they have the necessary ability, to rise to the highest points in that service.
  One of those highest pinnacles has, until this Bill, been reserved for lawyers who have usually spent a lifetime or a substantial part of a lifetime in law—sometimes in private practice, which has its own value, usually at the Bar, or as a solicitor. What message will go out to the Government legal service if this Bill is just passed on the nod, and the importance of the aspects I have mentioned is not recognised? The message will be that the Government is less interested in cherishing high-quality lawyers in its service.
  If the Attorney-General were on the Treasury Bench for this debate, he might be tempted to intervene and say, "The Attorney-General—through the Treasury Solicitor

  413
  and Procurator-General—is the Minister responsible for the Government legal service, and he will look after that aspect of the matter." I am sure that the Attorney-General would attempt to look after the matter. He must, however, work hand in glove with the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. Hoon: There is no suggestion in the Bill that lawyers will be prevented from applying for the position or prevented from being appointed. The right hon. Gentleman has a very distinguished legal background. Surely he is not suggesting that lawyers should be afraid of competition from those who are not lawyers?
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: No, I am not suggesting that. As I said, I am attempting to be helpful in the Bill's passage, but subject to modifications—to which I invite the Minister to give the closest attention.
  A week ago, I gave Lord Irvine express notice of the point that I am about to make. Today, I tabled an amendment, which the House may consider. I owe an apology for the late tabling of that amendment. Despite some precedent to the contrary, I hope that the First Deputy Chairman will be able to accept my amendment. I will not, however, anticipate the matter one way or another.
  The purpose of my amendment and the substance of the matter—which I shall invite the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with—is that, if the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor who is in post for a period of, usually, six or seven years, is not a lawyer, he should have a deputy secretary who is a lawyer. I should say that I have had the honour of knowing a number of permanent secretaries, although I cannot recall exactly how long the very distinguished current permanent secretary has been in post. There are senior members of the Lord Chancellor's Department who could perfectly well serve as deputy secretary.
  A properly appointed deputy secretary in the Department—which is, as I said, unique—would, from an acknowledged and senior position, be available to assist the Lord Chancellor in maintaining his close relations with the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor himself will no doubt seek to maintain his daily relations with the judiciary extremely well, but a deputy secretary could assist with long-term relations with the more junior judiciary, with the Bar and in the operation of the current elaborate and very excellent legal framework, thereby providing feedback to the Lord Chancellor from the legal profession and on the operation of the courts. The vital duties of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor in these aspects of his work will then be fulfilled thoroughly and carefully by someone who is competent to do so.
  I look forward to debating my amendment. The Bill's passage might be assisted if the Parliamentary Secretary were able to give me a fair wind on it. I look forward to Ministers' considering constructively, and, I hope, accepting, either my amendment or one in similar terms. Doing so would facilitate knitting together in the 21st century the two great strains of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and thus avoid an ugly break—from a long-standing tradition in which only a lawyer could fill the position, to one in which no senior and specially demarcated office in the Lord Chancellor's Department is filled by a lawyer.
  If the Bill is passed unamended, it will be possible that neither the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor nor his most senior assistants are lawyers. It would even
  414
  be possible for there to be no lawyers in the Lord Chancellor's Department—although I do not suggest for one moment that that is likely to happen. The House should nevertheless remember that, over the years, Governments of all complexions have thought it right that the Lord Chancellor's right-hand official should be a lawyer. I am simply saying that, if No. 1 is not a lawyer, then, for the time being, No. 2 in the Department should be a lawyer, so as to protect that position. I very much hope that that will be accepted.
  I am also surprised that the Government have proved themselves susceptible to agism. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is frowning. Perhaps he has not read the Bill, but he certainly read out a speech passages of which sought to justify the fact that it would no longer be possible for a permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to be kept on beyond the age of 60. What on earth is the argument for making it impossible for the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to be kept on beyond the age of 60?
  Personally, I can see no reason why other members of the civil service should not be capable of being kept on beyond that age. To say that that is not in conformity with other Departments is precisely the kind of awful argument that we have all had to suffer since kindergarten—that, because one person does not have something, no one else can have it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to use that argument, although I strongly suspect that he is.
  Mr. Hoon: I am going to use that argument, because it is important to have consistency across Whitehall. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well from his previous experience that all permanent secretaries, apart from the one that we are debating, retire at 60. Furthermore, I had always assumed that the distinguished profession of lawyer required adherence to precedent.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: That is the hon. Gentleman's best shot.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: If that is the hon. Gentleman's best shot, as is being said behind me, I do not think that he has thought it through, because the Bill would alter precedent. We would be sympathetic to some modification of precedent, but we should not then instantly leap to a slavish adherence to precedent in the opposite direction. The hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister if I read his biography correctly, has lectured on law, even to the new world, and should be a little more open-minded.
  While we are discussing matters ad hominem and discussing agism, my researches have also discovered that the hon. Gentleman and I have one thing very firmly in common—we share a birthday.
  Mr. Hoon: It is very soon.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Indeed, on 6 December. The hon. Gentleman is 15 years younger than I am, but the Lord Chancellor is only 18 months younger.
  I anticipate that the Lord Chancellor, who will be 60 before the likely date of a general election—he will be 60 on 23 June 2000 if I read his biography correctly in one of the reference books—will be anxious to continue as Lord Chancellor at least for the term of this Parliament.

  415
  If "Two-term Tony", as I believe he is coming to be known, should have his way and win two terms, I suspect that there will be a "Don't Ditch Derry" move. The Lord Chancellor will hope to be Lord Chancellor in a future Labour Government, should one be elected by some mischance. He would then be soldiering on well over the age of 60.
  Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised that the Minister did not dwell on that point, if only to justify the fact that he wishes to make an arbitrary rule, forcing the permanent secretary to retire prematurely and when at the peak of his powers—a rule that he has not even sought to justify—but that he is apparently quite satisfied for a Lord Chancellor to continue indefinitely after that arbitrary age limit?
  Sir Nicholas Lye11: My right hon. Friend once again puts his finger on an important point. If I can have the Parliamentary Secretary's attention, there is an equally important point to develop.
  We are told that the Department will not be in conformity with any other. In other Departments, everyone is obliged to retire at 60, but one of the Lord Chancellor's primary functions is to deal with members of the judiciary, who do not retire until the age of 70.
  Although it is unlikely that a permanent secretary would carry on until the age of 70, some flexibility is desirable to ensure a continuity of knowledge in the Lord Chancellor's right-hand adviser on a vital part of his role. To remove that possibility on the grounds of consistency is merely doctrinaire.
  I would be the first to acquit the Lord Chancellor of any charges of those characteristics. I have not regarded him as one of the more dogmatic or doctrinaire members of the Government. I hope that he is not embarrassed that I put that to his credit. I hope that he will listen and reflect carefully on the two important points that I have mentioned, which I hope to develop later in our debates.
  We should give the Bill a Second Reading only if the Minister gives us some indication of a fair wind and favourable consideration for my sensible amendments, which would in no way damage the ability of the Government to run the affairs of state effectively.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I follow the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about agism. Many of us are concerned about the political correctness that is creeping into every aspect of the new Labour Government. Such political correctness is being severely questioned not just in the House, but throughout industry and in legal circles. It is wrong and contrary to common sense for a senior official—a permanent secretary—to be told that he has to retire at 60 when he will be dealing with crucial issues relating to the appointment of judges, who will sit to the age of 70.
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is different and the legal profession and the legal system are different. They form a separate pillar of our constitution. We must be particularly aware of the special position of the law. We have already seen the new Labour Government playing
  416
  fast and loose with our constitution. They govern by press release and spin doctor, bypassing the House of Commons. That is a slippery slope to perdition.
  I have great respect for the Minister and I have had a great liking for him for several years. He has been sent here to do the bidding of his master in another place, as he has to. If he spends a little time analysing what he is proposing, he may have severe doubts about it.
  Considerable concerns were expressed about the proposal as recently as two days ago in The Guardian by no less a correspondent than Mr. Marcel Berlins, who was for many years the doyen of legal correspondents at The Times, which was when I first got to know him. We used to study together in the same library in the late 1970s. He now has a column in The Guardian, called "Writ Large". He says:
  "Slipping quietly through Parliament is an extraordinary Bill, whose sole purpose is to make one Permanent Secretary to a Government Department equal to all other Permanent Secretaries."
  I agree with Mr. Berlins' concerns. He continues:
  "So the Lord Chancellor's Department has finally fallen to egalitarianism."
  However, these proposals are of much greater concern.
  Mr. David Raney: Will my hon. Friend continue with that article from The Guardian, which refers to the possible appointment of Mr. Ian Burns as the next permanent secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department? Will he explain how the proposal could have the ludicrous consequence of Mr. Burns being appointed at the age of 59 and having to retire at 60?
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to some of the other concerns referred to in that article. I have no idea whether Mr. Berlins is right—perhaps the Minister will tell us when he winds up—but he says that the Bill has become known informally in the Lord Chancellor's Department as the Ian Burns Bill. I have no knowledge of Mr. Burns and I do not seek to comment in any way on the ability of a gentleman of whom I had never previously heard, but if Mr. Berlins is right—and I know him to be one of the best-informed newspaper legal correspondents—there could be ludicrous consequences.
  In all aspects of public life, able people are being forced to retire when they can still perform many years of public service. That is happening purely because of doctrinaire policy. The Government are following the mistakes of many previous Labour Governments and imposing doctrinaire age limits contrary to common sense.
  I share the great concerns raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. It has been suggested in the past few days that the role of legally qualified clerk in magistrates courts is to be split from administration, which does not require them to be legally qualified. Several of us tried to raise our concerns at the time of that statement, although some of us were unable to do so. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about the feeling that the new Labour Government believe that lawyers should be excluded from positions of responsibility.
  I detected a considerable anti-lawyer feeling among Labour Members in the previous Parliament when we were in government and they were in opposition. I know that the Minister does not share that feeling because he is

  417
  a former law lecturer and a qualified lawyer. I also know from his service on the legal committee of the European Parliament that he has always taken a serious and balanced view of legal issues. I urge him to examine the prejudices of some of his party colleagues, who seek to exclude lawyers.
  The Minister has said that there is no reason to suppose that all future incumbents of the post will not be lawyers, but this may be the beginning of a slippery slope, with the Government seeking to prevent lawyers from holding the post. It is important that the holder of the post should be a lawyer. If not, at least my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment should be accepted in Committee to ensure that, if the post holder is not a lawyer, his deputy must be. I am sure that the Minister will concede that there are many specialist aspects of the job that require a lawyer.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to the growth in the Government legal service, in which I have many friends, including some former members of my former chambers. He did not dwell on one of the most important innovations of the previous Conservative Government, which is relevant to today's debate—the creation of a Minister in the House of Commons to answer for the Lord Chancellor's Department. That post was held by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) in a distinguished manner for several years. It was also held by Mr. Jonathan Evans, the former Member for Brecon and Radnor. We all look forward to his return to the House at the earliest opportunity.
  The post was an important innovation and the fact that we can have this debate today shows how wise the previous Government were to ensure that there was a Minister in this House who could be questioned. If we did not have such a Minister, legislation such as this Bill could have been slipped through on the blind side without proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am delighted that we have an opportunity to have this debate in which the Bill, the role of the Government legal service and the role of the officials at senior and junior level who serve in it can be analysed.
  We must consider carefully whether it is right for the Bill to be passed in its present form—or at all. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has said that he would be happy for it to go through if amendments were accepted. I believe it would have been much wiser for the Bill not to be introduced and for no age limit to be imposed. It would be better, as has been the case for many years, for the permanent secretary to be a lawyer. I am concerned that the Government have got the matter wrong, and I hope that they will reconsider it carefully.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: We welcome the Bill because it will sweep away an anachronism and open up the post of permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor to a far wider field of candidates. I say that notwithstanding the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), who enjoys an enviable reputation in this House and elsewhere.
  We would like the Minister to address two points. First, I hope that the Government are committed to an independent and politically impartial civil service which
  418
  is free from party political favouritism. A new permanent secretary is likely to be appointed in or before April 1998. The previous Government made significant changes to the method of selecting senior civil servants. How will the new permanent secretary be selected?
  Secondly, I have noted in Sir Peter Middleton's recent report that he states:
  "A single Government Department should be responsible for all aspects of civil justice".
  Do the Government intend to introduce proposals for a single Ministry to be responsible for and to co-ordinate the proper administration of justice, which is now conducted by various Departments of state?
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I declare an interest in that, over the years, I have sat as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and I now sit occasionally—I might like to sit rather more often—as a recorder of the Crown court.
  I have a fair amount of notes in front of me on points that I intend to make—[Laughter.] I want, however, to start with an instinctive reaction to the Bill, which is of slight unease. I understand that it is fashionable to undervalue and downgrade lawyers. It is a sport taken up by many, but it has not yet been banned in this country, and it is gathering force. I am sometimes sad that the lawyer is so undervalued and I hope that the Bill will not contribute to that trend.
  In parallel to that thought is the observation that, nowadays, when there is talk about the administration of justice, the courts and the law, one hears more and more comments such as, "It must be more efficient. We must have more productivity. How are we going to save money? How are we going to do things faster?" More and more of that kind of comment comes out as the 1990s develop, and less and less emphasis is placed on the integrity of the lawyer and on the importance of lawyers and the legal Departments. I have put that point badly, but I think that the Minister will understand what I am saying. I worry that too much emphasis is placed on the twin evils of productivity and efficiency.
  What is the Bill about? It tells us that in future the permanent secretary need not be a lawyer. The Lord Chancellor has said that his Department needs as its official head the most able and experienced candidate available. Many of us cannot disagree with that comment. The Lord Chancellor goes on to say, however:
  "I and my predecessors have been well served by a distinguished line of Permanent Secretaries, who have ably managed the organisation".
  I looked up the records and discovered that eight permanent secretaries have served in the Department over the past 110 years—one for as long as 29 years, which is not bad going. Is the Lord Chancellor right, however, to say that in future permanent secretaries need not be lawyers of 10 years' standing?
  The Minister has said that the choice available to the Lord Chancellor is severely limited. How wide is the field? How limited is the choice? Is it too small? From how many people would the Lord Chancellor be able to choose if the previous criteria applied? Have previous appointments been unsatisfactory? What is prompting the change?

  419
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a telling intervention in which he referred to the unique nature of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is indeed unique. It is a Department with which I have had much contact over the past few years. To me and to people outside the Chamber, it is essentially different from the other great Departments of state. It is different in that I think of it not so much as part of the Government machine as a Department with real independence and independent thinking. It is an important safeguard in our democracy.
  The permanent secretary of the Department must have close links with the top judiciary, with recorders, with stipendiary magistrates and with justices. Indeed, he probably has close links with the head of judicial appointments the Department. The head of judicial appointments is an important person who, I am sure, has close daily links with the permanent secretary. Is it not right that the permanent secretary has come from the same stable of lawyers? Is the Bill, by implication, an attack on lawyers and on the Government legal service? Will it be seen as a slap-down for the many distinguished people who should be considered for the post of permanent secretary because of their qualifications and their legal experience?
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire rightly referred to the parallel problem relating to the recent proposals for magistrates clerks. The Bill divides the functions of the magistrates clerk between the administrative functions and the functions of sitting as a clerk. The Minister will know—this is an important point not unconnected with the Bill—that as the years have gone by, magistrates clerks have felt deeply undervalued. The proposal to hive them off so that one is involved entirely in administration and the other in court sitting is a mistake. My right hon. and learned Friend was quite right on that point.
  Mr. Ruffley: Would my hon. Friend care to elaborate on the ridiculous agism involved in qualifying to be a magistrate? Is not the agism that is so apparent in the Bill also apparent in the structure of the magistrates court system? Does he share my experience of many constituents who wish to become magistrates being told that, due to their age, they cannot contribute to work on the Bench?
  Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right. I was coming to the provision concerning the age limit of 60. It is as though that is a magic figure. Yes, the provision is an example of agism, which is reflected, in a sense, throughout the system. Many of us have encountered constituents who cannot become magistrates due to their age, although they would contribute immensely to the general well-being of the magistrates court system and the administration of justice. That is wrong. When will people realise that a few grey hairs can be quite important?
  Mr. John M. Taylor: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend says hear, hear; there are no grey hairs on him. For my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) it is another matter.
  Mr. Taylor: That is because some of us do not have any hair at all.
  Mr. Malins: To be serious, though, there is merit in the point. There is no difficulty in involving people over the age of 60 in the posts. Does any hon. Member think that, suddenly, at the age of 60, people lose their ability? Many distinguished lawyers have reached their peak not in their forties or fifties, but in their sixties or even later. Many examples are known to us of outstanding men and women who contributed greatly to the law when they were well over 60. I cannot see a justification for imposing a strict age limit of 60 bearing in mind the men and women who have served as permanent secretary over the past 100 years. Can the Minister tell us how many of them served with great distinction well beyond the age of 60?
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Should not the Government and the Minister be considering whether to raise the upper age limit? We know that we have an aging population and, as time goes by, it will become increasingly difficult—unless people are prepared to work to a later age—for the working population to sustain those who are not working. The proposal is a retrograde step. I would much rather the Government said that they were raising the retirement age for all permanent secretaries.
  Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have an aging population; people are living longer. Is not the fact that a growing proportion of the population will be in their sixties, seventies or, indeed, eighties an argument for enabling people to carry on, with just a degree of flexibility, rather than stopping them in their absolute prime at the age of 60? I for one cannot understand why the Bill is so inflexible.
  I return to my general theme. It worries me that, as we move towards the close of the century, what I might describe as the independence of lawyers—the pure law—is being watered down. Instead, we are fed a diet of administrators, those who seek productivity in the magistrates court system and those who are urging it to be more efficient—whatever that means. How does one become more efficient? We should be concentrating on the administration of a good, fair and accessible criminal justice system.
  As I have already said, the reforms that are to be imposed on magistrates courts will make access to justice and the courts much more difficult for the ordinary person, who will find everything that much more remote. That argument spills over to the issue of the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor. Over the years, the post has been filled by a lawyer and I believe that that should continue always to be the case. People outside the House consider the Lord Chancellor's Department somewhat separate from other Departments: a unique and independent Department for which they have always had the utmost respect. If the Bill is passed unamended, there will be less respect for that Department. There is a real danger that some of its integrity, qualities and great

  421
  achievements will not be repeated. Indeed, there is a danger that those qualities and that integrity will disappear in the years ahead.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: In considering the matter before us I looked at the proceedings of the Bill that became the Supreme Court Act 1981—the original Bill. It immediately caught my eye that the then Attorney-General, Sir Michael Havers, said:
  "with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whom I welcome, the Opposition Benches are deserted."
  For those who believe that the House of Commons has somehow declined over the years, here we are as living proof that that is not so. Whereas the Opposition Benches were deserted in 1981, my hon. Friends and I are living proof that the present Opposition are vigorous in their determination thoroughly to scrutinise what is before the House. Conversely, on this occasion, the Government Benches are all but deserted; in fact, I do not see one authentic Back Bencher on them.
  Such a parliamentary observation—if I may indulge myself—leads to the question why the Bill before us was not introduced in the other place in the same way as the 1981 Bill. Perhaps the Minister will wish to comment on that. On the face of it, to me as a layman—I speak as one of the few non-lawyers to contribute to the debate, so I hope the House will forgive me any infelicities—the Bill would have been an ideal Bill to introduce in another place. Although I am sure that the House would want to scrutinise it properly—I cannot imagine why there would be any problem in our doing so—why was not the Bill introduced in another place? That is a matter for the Minister to return to.
  The proceedings on the 1981 Bill are very interesting. It must be relevant for us to reflect on that Bill since the Government are seeking to amend it. The then right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, the Opposition spokesman, said:
  "We all accept that there are certain tasks that should be carried out by those who are qualified by the nature of their training and experience … it would be unfortunate if, in our anxiety to avoid restrictive practices, we overlooked the qualifications and experience that are necessary for a particular job."—[Official Report, 6 May 1981; Vol. 4, c. 199-210.]
  Those words are at the kernel of the argument before us.
  I gather that the Minister might ask us to consider other stages of the Bill's proceedings this very day. I would be reluctant to accept that, although I shall of course follow the lead of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). If he were satisfied that the Government were prepared to give due recognition to our legitimate and constructive points, we might allow the Bill to make rapid progress. I hope that there is no suggestion that there will be an attempt to ram the measure through the House without proper deliberation or due regard to the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend wishes to move. We shall return to that point later.
  The question that the Minister must answer on the point about qualifications was raised by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and, in a different way, by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Are we being told that there is an
  422
  insufficient supply of suitable candidates under the existing regime? Is it suggested that somehow we cannot find a suitable permanent secretary for the Lord Chancellor's Department within the existing restrictions? However, I have not heard the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that.
  The Bill seeks to overturn a satisfactory arrangement, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not told us why. It would be one thing if he had argued that there were not enough trained and experienced lawyers within the Department, but I do not believe that that is what he was arguing. The Bill has come out of the blue, seemingly for the sake of dogma, political correctness or some grotesque uniformity across Government. We need more on that point before some of us can be satisfied.
  I shall not labour the point that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot simply be lumped in with the other Departments of Government and treated the same, because many of my hon. Friends have already covered it. However, as a layman, I always thought that the Lord Chancellor's Department was special and separate, not least because—I am now treading on difficult territory—in much of its work it fulfils not just a quasi-judicial role but a judicial role. To that extent, the Department must be marked out as separate.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: My right hon. Friend prefaced his remarks by saying, with false modesty, that he is not a lawyer. He is of course one of the Opposition's sharpest minds and best speakers. He singled out the Lord Chancellor's Department as having a special role, and I endorse that point. The Lord Chancellor is the President of the Supreme Court and the most senior judge in England. That distinguishes his Department from others.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can elaborate on his inside knowledge of the Lord Chancellor's Department. We will want to take his words into account when we decide how to vote on the Bill.
  Mr. Ruffley: Clearly, some offices of state require a specialist knowledge for the discharge of their functions. For example, the Home Secretary requires a knowledge of the law and we have seen a long succession of Home Secretaries who have been lawyers of one type or another. That is because solicitors and barristers understand the nature of the work of a Home Secretary. Is not what is true of the Home Office also true of the Lord Chancellor's Department?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regularly remind the House that interventions should be brief. That rule is particularly apposite in the case of hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye. I am sure that they would not wish to run the risk of repeating themselves.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) is right. Do we want to lump the Lord Chancellor's Department in with the department for youth, sport and ballet dancing, or whatever it is called these days? There is no need for restrictions on appointments in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we are all agreed—unless the Parliamentary Secretary dissents—that the Lord Chancellor's Department has special characteristics that justify the

  423
  restrictions originally placed on the qualifications of the permanent secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary has given no reasons for departing from those restrictions and the hon. Gentleman must satisfy us on that point before the Bill goes much further.
  My main point, which I cannot state strongly enough, is about agism. I have long felt that it is pernicious, unnecessary and unfair for arbitrary and mandatory rules to be placed on retirement age. That is even more true of the insupportable mandatory retirement age of 60 for the civil service. I have had the honour and the privilege of working closely with senior civil servants, which has been one of the greatest and most pleasing experiences of my life. I was always shocked and disappointed when, at the age of 60, civil servants at the peak of their powers were forced into arbitrary retirement by a rule that was devised long ago in completely different circumstances.
  Now we have the Parliamentary Secretary saying, with almost a straight face, that he will remove the welcome latitude that has hitherto been available to the Lord Chancellor's Department for the sake of blind uniformity with the wrong-headed rules applied to the rest of the civil service. This should be an opportunity to follow the good example of the Lord Chancellor's Department and change the rules for the rest of the civil service. We should abolish arbitrary, uniform and mandatory retirement ages, certainly for the civil service and preferably for everyone else. As a small first step, we should retain the existing flexibility in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and use it as a basis for changing the rules for the rest of the civil service.
  For those reasons, we need more convincing reasons than we have heard so far to persuade us that the Bill is worth supporting. Because I am in a generous mood today, I am prepared to go along with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, who made a perhaps over-generous offer to the Parliamentary Secretary. I will be guided by my right hon. and learned Friend, who has wide experience of such matters, but I hope that the Bill, however small a measure it may seem, will not be railroaded through the House today as if it were of little or no account. I hope that the Opposition's comments will convince the House that the Bill deserves thorough attention and a co-operative and flexible approach from the Government before it goes any further.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: When I first found out that the Bill was being brought before the House, my concern was that we had had no notice. I appreciate the need for urgency, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, but the Bill involves a substantial change to an important appointment which has been notified in only one press notice from the Lord Chancellor's Department dated 29 October 1997—the same day that the Bill was published. My inquiries into the Bill's background, beyond what is covered by the press release from the Department, show that no consultation has taken place with any of the legal bodies, such as the Law Society, or with the union for senior civil servants. In effect, the Bill has no history, and no ministerial statement preceded it. Those facts raise concerns about the motives behind the Bill.
  424
  This afternoon, it has become clear that the reasons behind the Bill stem from the need of the Lord Chancellor's Department to find a replacement for the present permanent secretary, who intends to retire. That is not a good reason to change an established practice.
  I shall now turn to the history of the role that the permanent secretary has played. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) noted, apparently no one was present on the Labour Benches when the Supreme Court Act 1981 was discussed by the House. If the then Opposition had bothered to be present, they would have learnt that the post of permanent secretary was treated together with judicial posts under the Act. I quote from the Supreme Court Act 1981.
  "A person shall not be qualified for appointment to any office in the Supreme Court listed in column I of any Part of Schedule 2 unless he is a person of any description specified in relation to that office in column 2 of that Part."
  At the top of the column, we have the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and there is a requirement that the permanent secretary should have a 10-year general qualification in the law. It will be noted that that is similar to all the other major offices which are there listed, including the Official Solicitor, the Queen's Coroner and Attorney and Master of the Crown Office and Registrar of Criminal Appeals, the Registrar of Civil Appeals and the district judge of the principal registry of the family division. I take that back—he needs only five years' qualification within the relevant profession. A substantial number of persons and offices are listed which require a lesser period of legal general qualification.
  I am mindful of everything that the Minister has said, but a detailed explanation is required as to why an accepted practice which was not opposed by Labour in 1981—indeed, no Labour Member was present when it was accepted—is to be arbitrarily overturned. The measure as not been introduced in the House of Lords, as one might have expected—if only because the political and legal head of the Department concerned is the Lord Chancellor. One might say that it is the Lord Chancellor's cookie and we should have liked to hear his explanations at the outset.
  The Minister has said that he wishes all the Bill's stages taken in the House to be taken in one go. Subsequently, it will go to the Lords for formal rubber stamping. I do not share that view and I would like to explain why. First, I wish to refer to the nature of the office. A great deal has been said by my hon. Friends on the subject, but it bears repeating. [Laughter.] One of the reasons why it bears repeating is that, effectively, we are having a dialogue with the Minister only. It is a pernicious development when it is assumed that a Bill can be rubber-stamped by this House without a proper debate.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Those Labour Members who are laughing will need some points repeated, because they were not in the Chamber when they were originally made. They only came into the Chamber after my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that not a soul was on the Government Back Benches except one hon. Lady substituting as a Parliamentary Private Secretary. I think she was not present in a Back-Bench role—perhaps she

  425
  will rise to speak and prove me wrong. All the others laughing so happily have not been listening to the debate, and my hon. Friend's remarks will be new to them.
  Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely, and that is why this is a proper subject for a full debate.
  I have sympathy with the difficulty which the Minister says the Department faces. From 1885—when a permanent secretary was first appointed—until today, the scope of the Lord Chancellor's Department has changed beyond all recognition. It is an important Department of State and, in addition, a major spending Department. I am mindful of that, and of the fact that it has spawned a substantial bureaucracy. The Department has many employees and has an exceptionally important function in reconciling the administration of justice with the conduct of the Government, in a way that is peculiar to this country. The Department is particularly important to the way in which we conduct our business in this country.
  I realise that there are potential difficulties in finding administrators who may be able to deal with the scope of the administrative operation of the Department. But one must reflect that, as the Department has grown in past years, there has not been much difficulty in recruiting permanent secretaries of the highest calibre to discharge their office, as the Minister has acknowledged. What has not been fully explored is the role of the permanent secretary in his quasi-judicial function. That is why he is listed along with all the other quasi-judicial functions in the 1981 Act.
  The permanent secretary is the most important adviser to the Lord Chancellor on a number of matters, including appointments and the way in which the judiciary might better be able to function. It is of the utmost importance that, in carrying out this role, he should be able to advise the Lord Chancellor fully on a range of matters and to have good connections and contacts with all parts of the legal profession.
  In my experience, previous permanent secretaries have involved themselves in the professional life of the Bar or the Law Society. I am well aware from my early days at the Bar that—either in office or retirement—a number of permanent secretaries took the closest possible interest in the way in which the profession operated, which clearly enabled them to have an enormous amount of input into the problems of the administration of justice in this country. It is proposed in the Bill that, in future, that involvement will not be a requirement. I am anxious that, in those circumstances, the Lord Chancellor will not receive the best advice for the discharge of his judicial functions.
  Comments have been made to the effect that the legal profession is wishing to feather its own nest and keep its monopolies. But if I can give an analogy, it would be thought odd if the job of principal medical adviser to the Government went to someone who was not a doctor, on the basis that his functions were mainly administrative and that he could receive input from others. In such circumstances, he might just as well be an administrator as someone grounded in medical science. If that were the case, there would be an outcry and public disquiet on the subject.
  Similarly, it is important that the Lord Chancellor is seen to be receiving from the permanent secretary—or someone occupying a position close to the permanent
  426
  secretary—the relevant legal and professional advice to enable the Lord Chancellor to discharge his burdensome duties. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) suggested that this could properly be done by an amendment which simply stated that, if the permanent secretary was not legally qualified and did not fulfil the criteria set out in the 1981 Act, his deputy would be acceptable.
  I am bound to say that that is sensible and ought to commend itself to the Minister. If it does not, I will have serious reservations. There has been no consultation. The professional bodies concerned have not been asked for their views, and it has been suggested that this matter is so straightforward that it requires only a rubber stamp.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend refers to the lack of consultation, which tends to support the concern expressed in The Guardian—to which I have referred—that there is a distinct whiff of this matter being pushed through on the blind side by the Government in the hope that no one will notice. A suggestion for the Government's motivation was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) in an intervention. Is there not some truth in what he said?
  Mr. Grieve; I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree. I have no comment as to the capacity or otherwise of any individual to fulfil the responsibilities of the office. I would not wish to do so. I reiterate, however, that simply to introduce such legislation because of a one-off difficulty without considering the totality of the picture is a mistake.
  Before concluding, I must say one or two words about the agism. I do not want to go into it in great detail, as I have already intervened on the matter and do not intend to repeat myself. I would say, however, that, if one accepts that the nature of judicial and quasi-judicial offices is somewhat different from that of the other offices fulfilled in the civil service, and if one differentiates them from that service—which I believe the Government would be at pains to do—one immediately confronts the fact that the retirement ages are entirely different. That was for a good reason because it was considered that experience was of such importance in such offices that it overcame the need for the normal retirement age.
  I have expressed the view that, as time goes by in the next decade, we will be confronted increasingly with the fact that we are forcing people to retire too early. That in itself is an argument why the present proposal is not a good one. Even if I were not dealing with that wider issue, however, I would still be concerned as to why it should be thought that the retirement age of the permanent secretary, who fulfils a completely individual role, should be tied to that of the rest of the civil service.
  Everything that emphasises the somewhat different nature of the Lord Chancellor's Department from that of other offices of government is an important reinforcement of the independence of its role. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that have been made. I shall certainly defer to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire wants to do at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate.
  I can only express a certain amount of disquiet, and the hope that in future there should at least be a few weeks for adequate consultation and reflection. A feature of this

  427
  Government and the way in which they introduce legislation is that within 48 hours or a few days of its coming before the House it is back to be debated. That really is not good enough. We should be supplied with an opportunity for reflection and not simply hi-jacked and expected to say, "Well, it isn't very important. We can let it through." All legislation is important and the Bill is particularly so.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I have ever suffered from the debilitating weakness of being able to see both sides of an argument, something that never troubled the last Prime Minister but two. On the one hand, in dealing with judges and the Bar, not least silks and the Law Society, one is dealing, dare I say, with a client group that can occasionally show a slight tendency to believe that no one but one of its own understands its business. On the other hand, it can in theory at least be a distortion to career progress in the Lord Chancellor's Department for senior civil servants in the Department to know that some of them could become permanent secretary and some, by statute no less, could never do so.
  The question of a Department of State having a client group can incidentally, in certain circumstances, lead to false expectations on the part of that group. On seeing one of its own in place in a Ministry, the client group can half believe that he or she will represent it in government. To the contrary, he or she is most likely to be the bringer of denial on behalf of the Department to his or her fellow professionals in the client group. I experienced that as a solicitor and junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department—I was the first person to hold that office—and, indeed, as a member of the Law Society. To some extent, I think that I was a disappointment to my client group.
  One wonders how far one might extend the provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to a senior medical post—overtly medical in qualification—being occupied by someone who did not possess that qualification. What would happen to a Ministry of Defence whose permanent secretary was a retired general? Would it work? What about a large landowning, proprietor farmer as permanent secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a senior policeman at the Home Office, a diplomat at the Foreign Office—perhaps that happens, as there is a read-across between the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office and the diplomatic service—a consultant at health and an airline pilot at transport? The better view is that such appointments are not always happy.
  That brings me to an analogy drawn from an exchange of correspondence that I had with the British Legion, which urged on me with highly responsible reason and argument that there should be a Minister for veterans. I was doubtful if such an appointment would bring them the advantages that they worthily desired, because such a Minister would inevitably represent the Government to them, not them to the Government.
  At this point, I will not digress on what I consider to be the anomalous position of the Attorney-General, who is a very senior member of the Government and also head of the Bar [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am tempted, but not that tempted. The House will be interested, as always, in an historical insight.
  428
  In the 1590s—400 years ago—the House of Commons debated the role of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for four solid days, coming to the conclusion–1 have this faithfully—that the Clerk of the Crown is our own particular officer. You may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a sort of mystery in all that. On the other hand, you may think that that is not a very heroic piece of definition. Four hundred years later, we still do not seem to have the measure of this man. That may not be entirely surprising, since he has been around since at least 1331 as Clerk of the Crown in Chancery certainly. I think Parliament may be a little frightened of him. He has the endurance of a Hapsburg and also has important duties relating to writs of summons to Members of this honourable House.
  Finally, I agree with all that has been said about age discrimination, and I cannot understand why the measure was not introduced in the House of Lords. I feel that the Lord Chancellor's Department is particularly interesting. The office of Lord Chancellor has endured for about 1,360 years—it is almost as old as the monarchy and certainly far older than Parliament.
  In an earlier time, not least in the time of the Tudors, the Lord High Chancellor of England was easily the most powerful man in the country. He usually combined his judicial duties with one of the two archbishoprics and was chief executive as no Prime Minister these days is. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with the great 18th-century nostrum. Searching for reasons to explain why England was stable, the great jurists of the day, such as Montesquieu and others, came to the conclusion that England was stable because it separated the three fundamental functions of the state—the judicial, the executive and the legislative. It was a very elegant conclusion.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the dangers of the proposal, introduced by the Minister with so little scrutiny, is that it may be part of the slippery slope to merging those three pillars of state? That accords with much that we used to hear from Labour Members in opposition—the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) often used to argue this—about lay people with no legal qualifications becoming not only magistrates but judges.
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, one might as well have a vote on an aircraft to choose which passenger should be the pilot.
  The 18th-century conclusion that England was stable because of the separation of powers was one that the examiners seemed to want to arrive at irrespective of the evidence. There was precious little separation of powers then, and to this day the Lord Chancellor has in his person the presidency of the Supreme Court, the speakership of the House of Lords, the helm of an important Department of State and a very senior place in the Cabinet.
  The nostrums of 200 years ago were completely mistaken, but they had a mightily important consequence: the form and framework of the constitution of the United States of America, a country that is extremely difficult to govern because it has separation of powers and the Government cannot control spending.
  I had the enormous, humble privilege of serving in the Lord Chancellor's Department, where I acquired deep respect for the civil servants, and not least the permanent

  429
  secretary, from whom I had immensely capable help and warm and friendly assistance throughout my three and a half years there. They remain some of the happiest days of my life and if, by some fluke, there are any present who are connected with the Department, I mind not at all that they should know.
  I end as I began: I can see both sides of the argument, but I think that I shall follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) into the Lobby. How many times we shall go into the Lobby I am not sure. How much progress we shall make on the Bill is not known to me. As an Opposition Back Bencher, I do not control the timetable, so I shall merely take my opportunity, summoned as ever by bells, to register my vote in what will probably be several Divisions, before we can all go home, very much later tonight.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: The Minister was surely right to say that the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department was an important post, but he was surely wrong to give the impression that the change in the Bill was merely technical. It is a change in an important matter of principle.
  Part of the logic behind the Bill is set out in what Conservative Members consider to be an inadequate press release. The reason for the change is couched in the language of managerialism. I know how popular managerialism is on the Government Benches, but I fail to understand how the Government can ask us to support the change, when the reason given is that the limitation that they want to get rid of
  "is no longer appropriate to what over the years has become a major Department of State with a large budget and staff and a wide range of responsibilities."
  From the words in the press release, one might believe that the job described was counting paper clips or dealing with stationery orders or staff matters. That is part of the permanent secretary's job, but it is not the whole of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ably pointed out, the permanent secretary has quasi-judicial functions. We have heard precious little about that from the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), quoting Mr. Marcel Berlins, explained the other, partial logic behind the Bill: the levelling down and egalitarianism with which we are so familiar from the Government. It does not serve the interests of justice or the proper and efficient running of the Department.
  Whatever the logic—I use the word loosely in connection with the Labour party—it is perfectly clear that the Minister has not done his homework. The many excellent speeches by Conservative Members have exposed the many flaws in his argument. The Minister is laughing, but he must answer some important questions. Why has the First Division Association, according to the Library, not been consulted in any way? That is a disgraceful way to treat senior public servants. The Government talk about listening, caring, compassion and giving, but they are not giving much time and attention to the senior civil servants who work for them.
  Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend refers to consultation. Has there been any consultation with the judiciary,
  430
  the presiding judges at the various Crown court centres, the Bar Council, the Law Society or any of the other leading bodies that might be interested in the Bill?
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we need answers from the Minister.
  Mr. Hawkins: On the lack of consultation with the First Division Association, it should be noted that the former head of the FDA in the previous Parliament, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, is now a Minister in another place. One wonders what she thinks of her ministerial colleagues failing to consult her former trade union.
  Mr. Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Perhaps Baroness Symons would like to make her views known, assuming that the Minister without Portfolio will let her. I understand from the Library that the Law Society was also not consulted. We are entitled to ask that there should be consultation on legislation with parties that have a legitimate interest.
  There is another problem that the Minister has not dealt with: the disincentive to able lawyers in the civil service who want to stay there. We have heard nothing from the Minister about recruitment and retention; I hope that he will address that. It is difficult enough as it is to recruit top-rank lawyers to serve the Government, because there is a great discrepancy between the pay that a top lawyer can expect in the Government's legal service and in the City.
  When I worked in the City as a solicitor, it was not uncommon for first-rate legal brains to become partners of law firms and earn more than £200,000. Labour Members may think that that is obscene, but since their conversion to market principles they should at least acknowledge that we get what we pay for. If that is the going rate for first-rate lawyers in the City, we know that we will have a problem in getting the best in the Government legal service. That problem will become worse if the Bill is enacted, because many able young lawyers in the Government legal service will feel that they have lost the right to obtain the top job in the Lord Chancellor's Department. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, the Bill is anti-lawyer.
  The Attorney-General has just taken his seat. The Government are doing so badly that they have had to bring in the big guns.
  What work has the Minister done, with his officials, to see what effect the Bill will have on the recruitment and retention of first-rate legal ability in the Government legal service? If he has not done such work, will he undertake to do it today and report to the House accordingly?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) put his finger on the main issue when he said that the permanent secretary has a job like no other in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Legal specialism in such a Department is important. I have seen how civil servants' lack of legal ability can damage the quality of legislation. I have played a part in government for a lot longer than the Minister. I was a special adviser at the Home Office. I was shocked to see how policy failures emanated from the failure of senior Home Office civil servants, dealing with legal matters, to grasp legal concepts. That led to policy failures with which Ministers had to grapple.

  431
  For example, problems were caused by unit fines under criminal justice legislation, and legal definitions in the new age travellers legislation were not thought through. A good permanent secretary should have a handle on such subjects. At the end of the day, he is responsible for the quality of legislation that is put in draft for Ministers' approval. There are many clear examples of where a failure of legal understanding on the part of senior civil servants damages the quality of a Department's output.
  When we consider all the evidence, we must conclude that the Bill has not been thought through, and many questions remain. The Opposition would prefer the Bill to be dropped, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), being a generous man, has put forward a sensible amendment which addresses most of our concerns. If the Government have any sense, they will accept the amendment and ensure that we have what we all want—a proper functioning Lord Chancellor's Department. I thank my hon. Friends for their interventions and I urge support for my right hon. and learned Friend.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Hoon: The debate has been characterised by what can only be described as a gaggle of lawyers articulating some concern for other lawyers' vested interest in securing particular positions. That was described as vigorous opposition. Perhaps the Government should be grateful, because if that is vigorous opposition, they may not have much to worry about. If Opposition Members have to spend such a disproportionate amount of time on this modest measure, they may not have time for other matters, so at least I am assisting the Government's programme by occupying hon. Members who might have been usefully employed elsewhere.
  Mr. Grieve: Has not the debate revealed the Government's lack of scrutiny of the measure?
  Mr. Hoon: On the contrary: it has revealed Opposition Members' failure to do their homework. The single point that has been repeated throughout the debate is that the Bill removes the important qualification that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: In which year did that requirement first appear?
  Mr. Hoon: The requirement has been in place for a considerable time. However, if it is so vital that the permanent secretary should be legally qualified, why did the previous Conservative Government, in which the right hon. and learned Member held such a distinguished position, change the rules to allow, for the first time, the office to be occupied by someone who was not a lawyer? Conservative Members have referred many times to the importance of that position being occupied by a lawyer, but it was their Government who changed that. That is why it is remarkable that Conservative Members have not done their homework as thoroughly as they might have before spending so much time on this issue.
  I shall deal briefly with the more sensible points that have been made during the debate, but there were not too many. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)
  432
  achieved the ultimate in hyperbole when he said that the Government were playing fast and loose with the constitution and that that was the road to perdition. Clearly, the road to perdition for a lawyer is taking away the opportunity to compete freely with others in order to secure a position, because that is what we are debating today.
  It is remarkable that lawyers should spend so much time, presumably without any extra payment, arguing that cause. Looking at the distinguished qualifications that have been on display today, I am surprised and disappointed that they were not earning a much better living otherwise than in the Chamber.
  However, one or two sensible points have to be addressed. In particular, there was the suggestion that the deputy to the permanent secretary should be a lawyer. That is simply not practical, not least because it bears no relation to the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department, or any other Department, is organised. It may seem a long time since the Government were elected in May, because we have had such success in achieving our manifesto commitments, but Opposition Members who have had some experience of government have clearly forgotten how their Departments were organised. At least three former Ministers are sitting on the Opposition Benches, and they should remember that hardly a Department has a deputy permanent secretary. These changes have been under way for a considerable time.
  I can assure the House that knowledge and experience of the legal and judicial culture are bound to be desirable qualities for someone in this position. All things being equal, it may be attractive to have a candidate who possesses such qualifications. In any event, the successful candidate will either have to possess those qualities or show a capacity to acquire them.
  Furthermore, apart from the fact that the Department's legal adviser works directly to the permanent secretary, the senior management of the Department is always likely to include people who possess those qualities and who can support the permanent secretary or the Lord Chancellor.
  This remarkable effort by the lawyers on the Opposition Benches to preserve the qualification of lawyer for this position is a farrago of nonsense.
  Mr. Malin: The Minister would not have said that the current choice is severely limited unless he had something with which to back up his statement. How wide is the field? What is the choice currently available?
  Mr. Hoon: I referred to senior civil servants. Very few senior civil servants currently possess the requisite qualifications. Some lawyers have those qualifications, and anyone who has worked in the Department for the requisite period is similarly qualified—the hon. Gentleman overlooked that aspect, but I shall pass over that. As Conservative Members have emphasised often enough during the debate, someone with suitable seniority and experience will necessarily have had long experience of government. We would look to a very senior figure when considering an appointment to this position. Very few senior figures in Whitehall at present are suitably qualified.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He said that very few people in government service have the requisite qualifications.
  Mr. Hoon: No.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: He said that very few people in the Lord Chancellor's Department—
  Mr. Hoon: No, I did not.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman keeps shaking his head and saying that he did not say that. I wrote down, "very few who have the requisite qualifications": those were his ipsissima verba. I am sure that he will explain them, and when he does so, will he say briefly what the requisite qualifications for this post are and where he expects to find them?
  Mr. Hoon: Few senior civil servants with the requisite experience are qualified under the existing statutory rules. That is the problem which the Department faces in securing the appointment of someone who has the various qualifications that Conservative Members have set out.
  Conservative Members are caught by their own logic. If their logic is that it is vital to appoint someone who is so senior and experienced that he could hold such a responsible position in the Lord Chancellor's Department, they must recognise that it is important for the Department, when seeking such a figure, to be able to attract candidates from the widest possible field and not be limited to people who have either a legal qualification or the requisite five years' experience in the Department. Those are the two qualifications that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman has just referred to two qualifications that candidates may not have, but he has not listed any of the qualifications that are required. He will certainly have done his homework, so he should be able to spin off at least five qualifications that he has in mind.
  Mr. Hoon: This modest, technical change to the rules is important, because it will allow us to appoint the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department from among people with suitable qualifications and background who are presently eligible to be considered for the post of permanent secretary in any other Department. We should be able to choose someone with the requisite qualifications for leadership and management of a large public or private sector organisation. They should be familiar with, and ideally have direct experience of, the processes of government, and have proven experience of strategic policy development and implementation.
  The Bill removes the requirement of a legal qualification. I do not believe that it is necessary to have such a qualification. The previous Government established that in their legislation. It is remarkable that the House has been detained for so long by Conservative Members putting up bogus arguments. They voted for such a measure during the previous Parliament.
  Mr. Grieve: I want to understand fully the hon. Gentleman's position. The 1990 amendment to the
  434
  original Act provides that, as an alternative to a lawyer, someone who has been in the Lord Chancellor's Department for five years can be considered. The present measure will allow a senior civil servant who has not worked in the Lord Chancellor's Department and is not a lawyer to be appointed. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1990 amendment was introduced so as to be mindful of the need for the appointee to be familiar with the way in which the Lord Chancellor's Department operated if the person concerned was not a lawyer? Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that issue?
  Mr. Hoon: I distinctly heard the sound of ground changing: that was not the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. Having been reminded of the issues we are dealing with, he is now shifting his argument significantly. If he will forgive me, as he could not get it right the first time, I shall not pay any attention to his second, C-minus effort.
  I have answered all the serious questions save one. The matter of retirement age much concerned Conservative Members. The current provisions will allow the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to retire on the same basis as any other permanent secretary in any other Department. The permanent secretary will have the same opportunity as any other to continue after 60 in appropriate circumstances. There is that flexibility; former Ministers and any Conservative Members who have had experience of government know that full well. They are trying to put up a smokescreen: it is a charade.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman said that former Ministers know full well that there is flexibility to allow people to continue after 60. I confess to less than complete knowledge of that. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in two sentences what the rules are and how long any permanent secretary can continue?
  Mr. Hoon: The rules are flexible and can be agreed with the person concerned in the light of the circumstances to which Conservatives Members referred. If someone in that position still fulfils a valuable role in the Department, that person can, by agreement, be allowed to stay on after 60. All this modest proposal will do is put the Lord Chancellor's Department on the same footing as any other Department.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. It has been suggested that the Minister may seek to deal with further stages of the Bill today. It would help us if we knew before he resumes his seat, and before you ask the House for its view on Second Reading, how the Minister proposes to deal with this matter procedurally, and whether he is prepared to accept the reasonable amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) seeks to make to the Bill. I hope that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that would help the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair. It is a point of information to the Minister.
  Mr. Hoon: I dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's reflections on the vigorous opposition that he claimed the

  435
  official Opposition were now providing, although perhaps he was absent. I said that I was surprised that this debate amounted to vigorous opposition. If there had been vigorous opposition, the right hon. Gentleman would have noticed that the Order Paper showed that the measure was to go through all its stages. That has been available for the past week for Conservative Members to consider. Unfortunately, the vigour of their opposition does not appear to have manifested itself until rather late this afternoon.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Hoon: No, I will not give way.
  Indeed, the vigour of Conservative Members' opposition manifested itself so late in the day that amendments were submitted only at the eleventh hour.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not good enough. He has acknowledged in the House today that I alerted the Lord Chancellor last week to the suggestion that there should be a deputy secretary. That is the subject which we seek to debate today, and that is the matter on which we seek a careful and considered answer. I have tabled a manuscript amendment, which I hope will be selected for debate. It would be very helpful if the Minister would calmly and courteously answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me about his attitude to a proper debate on this important issue.
  Mr. Hoon: I was not in any way casting any doubt on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's integrity; I was simply reflecting on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that he was somehow a representative of some new, vigorous Opposition. Had he been as vigorous as he claimed, he might well have been able to check how long the proposal had been on the Order Paper—and, indeed, why his colleagues in the Opposition Whips Office had not sought to suggest, for example, in the light of today's debate, that the matter should be referred to a Committee.
  The Government received no representations whatever suggesting that that was what the Opposition wanted. In fact, until this afternoon's filibuster began, we had assumed—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, if a filibuster had been taking place, you would have ruled the speeches out of order? It is not right for a Minister Crown to describe speeches made by hon. Members as a filibuster, because that is not allowed in the Chamber.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Chair has not heard anything so far that has been out of order. My advice to the House is that there should be a little less provocation on both sides.
  Mr. Hoon: I was simply entering into the spirit of things, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise if any Conservative Members have been offended by the robust nature of my remarks.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 5.

  Division No. 84]

  [6.12 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Gardiner, Barry

  Allan, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Grogan, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Hain, Peter

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Harvey, Nick

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Healey, John

  Austin, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Banks, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Barnes, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Battle, John

  Hill, Keith

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hinchliffe, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Hoey, Kate

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Bell, Marlin (Tatton)

  Hope, Phil

  Betts, Clive

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hutton, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Illsley, Eric

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Burden, Richard

  Jenkins, Brian

  Burgon, Colin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Burnett, John

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Byers, Stephen

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Jones, Ms Jennifer

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Casale, Roger

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Chaytor, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Keetch, Paul

  Coaker, Vernon

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Khabra, Piara S

  Coleman, Iain

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Corbett, Robin

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Cotter, Brian

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Cranston, Ross

  Laxton, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Lepper, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Levitt, Tom

  Cummings, John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Linton, Martin

  Darvill, Keith

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Livsey, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dismore, Andrew

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  McIsaac, Shona

  Doran, Frank

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Drew, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McWalter, Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Edwards, Huw

  Marek, Dr John

  Ennis, Jeff

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Etherington, Bill

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Follett, Barbara

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Milburn, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Mitchell, Austin

  437

  Moore, Michael

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Morley, Elliot

  Singh, Marsha

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Norris, Dan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stunell, Andrew

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  (Dewsbury)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Todd, Mark

  Plaskitt, James

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pollard, Kerry

  Touhig, Don

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rammell, Bill

  Watts, David

  Rapson, Syd

  White, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Salter, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jane Kennedy and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Colvin, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Johnson Smith,

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mr. Nick Hawkins.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Janet Anderson.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee.—[Janet Anderson.]
  6.24 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief. Hon. Members who were not here for the earlier debate will be interested to know what this one is about. It is about the fact that the Government are seeking to get their business through the House in a day. I have made it perfectly clear that we are not seeking to prevent that: the official Opposition did not vote against Second Reading. We seek a sensible debate on two points, the first and most fundamental of which I gave the Lord Chancellor notice of a week ago. The Minister acknowledges that. I have tabled a manuscript amendment and hope that I can persuade you to call it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a bit confused about
  438
  whether we are in Committee or debating whether to go into Committee. I do not know whether other hon. Members would own up to the same confusion. Could the matter be clarified?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman were in the House paying attention to our proceedings he would know. The occupant of the Chair should not be required to inform him of the position. A motion has been moved about immediate committal. That is the Question that is before us.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Hon. Members may feel that they are being kept longer than they expected. We wish to have a serious debate on two questions. The first basic question in the Bill is whether the House should agree that the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary should not necessarily be a lawyer, not necessarily even a person with a legal qualification, who has grown up with the work of the Department and who has been there for at least five years. While we would be prepared to give that a fair wind, we would be prepared to do so only if the important continuity of knowledge from the Lord Chancellor's Department to the Lord Chancellor about his judicial functions and all functions connected with them and in relation to the practical administration of the courts were protected.
  That could be done by ensuring that when the Lord Chancellor's permanent secretary is not a lawyer or someone with five years' experience, there would be a deputy secretary in the Department to fulfil the necessary functions. He would be a lawyer of 10 years' standing; and there must be scores, if not hundreds, of such people with developing seniority in the Government legal service. That would mean that the Lord Chancellor would have a senior person who carries the respect accorded to someone who holds a notified post to whom he could turn on these important aspects of his duties. That would help to ensure that "can-doism", which I am sure would never take over in the Lord Chancellor's Department, is balanced by a respect for law and legality. That is the serious debate we seek.
  It is sometimes difficult for a manuscript amendment to be called. I am sure that the point has been grasped by the 220 hon. Members who are here. I hope that the Minister will give me a fair wind by saying that the Government will support a debate on my amendment if the House goes into Committee. Of course, that does not bind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should be grateful for a helpful answer to that from the Minister, and then we can decide whether we should support our continuing to scrutinise the Bill in Committee tonight.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Forth: The House is debating whether this matter should immediately be considered in Committee, and anyone who was in the Chamber during the Second Reading debate—which virtually no Labour Member attended—would realise immediately that the problem that confronts the House is the Minister's persistent refusal to give proper answers to the questions asked by Opposition Members during the debate.
  The motion must be viewed in the light of what went before. Surely we cannot expect automatically to agree a

  439
  deviation from the normal procedures of the House without taking some account of what happened previously; that would be entirely unreasonable. That, I suggest, is why procedures allow for the short debate on which we are now embarking, in which I suspect several of my hon. Friends wish to participate, because we must now consider, as a House, whether we are ready to consider the matter in Committee now, as opposed to at a future date.
  The difficulty is not confined to the poor quality of the Minister's response. It also revolves around what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said earlier about the difficulties that may or may not arise from the ability of the Committee—were it to sit—to consider amendments. I say that specifically because my right hon. and learned Friend has been over-generous to the Government and to the Minister. I am sorry to say that, but I think that he has. He has made them an offer that I could just about go along with, were it to be agreed to.
  I would prefer that we be allowed to reflect on what was said on Second Reading—on the points so eloquently made by Opposition Members and on the Minister's bumbling and rather arrogant replies. We should reflect on those and consider, in the light of the Second Reading debate, which has just finished, whether we want to amend the Bill. We should consider whether to take the package generously offered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire or, as I would prefer, to seek to move separate amendments, dealing separately with the key points that emerged from the debate.
  Those key points were, first, the proposed lifting of the restriction on the recruitment of a permanent secretary and, secondly, the point skated over by the Minister as though it were of no consequence—the age limit on the service of a permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  Those matters may or may not go together. I am starting to think, reflecting—as I have had only a few moments to do—on the Second Reading debate, that those matters can and should be dealt with separately. However, were the Minister to be prepared to be reasonable to the line taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, my colleagues might be prepared to go along with him. It would not be proper, however, in the light of the debate that has taken place, for matters such as that to be rushed into.
  The Minister made the procedure sound like a minor technicality. He tried to spoof the House as if to say, "Why are Conservative Members here? Why are they taking part in the debate? How have they the nerve to come to the Chamber to raise these points and waste my time?" I believe that I sum him up not unfairly.
  That will not do. The Minister may be relatively new in government, but he must learn that the Government are accountable to the House of Commons and that that accountability expresses itself in debate, in the mature consideration of points and in the consideration of amendments that are tabled now, rather peremptorily, on the Floor in Committee, or in Committee upstairs.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that among the points that the Minister signally failed to answer was the point about the fact that the Bill was not introduced in another place? As several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, we would expect that to be the procedure in the case of legislation that directly reflects on the position of the Lord Chancellor. That is another matter that needs reflection while the House is considering whether it is prepared to have the Bill pushed through without proper debate, all in one day.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right, and he reminds me that that was yet another argument that received, as far as I recall, no response from the Minister. I should have thought that, as a courtesy to the House, he might have explained why he and his colleagues in the Government had decided to table discussion of the Bill on a Thursday evening, to slip it through—probably while no one was noticing—and then to dust it off and send it to the other place.
  That is not the way that we should deal with these things. This is a serious matter—a matter of substance. We recognise that. The number of my colleagues who have attended the debate, the thought that they have given to the Bill and the thoughtful speeches that they have made are ample evidence of that.
  The matter that we are now considering—which we should not rush, either—in the light of what has been dealt with so far today, in the light of the debate on Second Reading, which some hon. Members now in the Chamber have just sat through, is whether it is reasonable and proper, in parliamentary terms, in scrutiny terms, in legislative terms, for us to rush into Committee without a chance for reflection. Should we do so without a chance, if I even dare suggest it, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire to have discussions with the Minister, to discover whether something might be worked out?
  I sensed that there was some common ground, in spite of the Minister's bluster. I sensed that the reasonableness of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire might have provided the basis of an agreement; but can we do that on the hoof? I doubt it. I doubt that we shall get a quality of outcome from this matter if there is an attempt to rush the Bill through.
  These are serious and weighty matters, which the House must consider, and I hope that due consideration can be given. As you have gathered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remain to be convinced that we are ready for the matter to be dealt with now, as opposed to at a reasonable future date. Unless I am much more convinced than I have been by the Minister, that would remain my view. I hope that he will reflect on that and realise that we are—I probably speak for all of my colleagues—in a mood to be helpful on this if only he will help us. That is all I am asking. It is not an unreasonable request.
  The Minister must learn that even the present Government must understand that there is give and take in this process. We are prepared to give rather a lot, but we should like some latitude from the Government on this matter, perhaps starting now.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Malins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right; the Minister gave no help on Second Reading. He was utterly dismissive of many of our arguments. Specifically, we repeatedly asked what the nature of the consultation was and whether presiding judges were consulted. Were the Crown court circuit judges, the Bar Council or the Law Society consulted? Who was consulted? We received no answer.
  Throughout the debate, no Member was on the Labour Benches, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), whose contribution we might have welcomed, as he has a distinguished career in the law. Perhaps he had been told to keep his mouth shut and not to say a word. As it was, questions such as those that I would have expected a man of his intelligence to ask were asked by Conservative Members, and not one received a proper answer. That is why I share the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Hoon: We are debating whether this matter should proceed immediately into Committee. We have heard a great deal of lyrical objection, especially from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who I think will become celebrated, as a result of his contribution to the Second Reading debate, as the author of the phrase, the debate that we have had today indicates that we have a vigorous Opposition. Unfortunately, the vigorous Opposition on that occasion only amounted to the five Members who passed through the No Lobby, so the official Opposition managed to get fewer Members through the No Lobby than the number who spoke on Second Reading. Perhaps Conservative Members were so exhausted by the process of the Second Reading debate that they could not summon the vigour to walk through the No Lobby.
  It is important for the House to realise that the official Opposition have had notice of our intention to deal with this matter for some seven days. During those seven days not a single representation was made from any Opposition Member, through the usual channels or in other ways, indicating any objection to this matter being dealt with through all its stages today. I urge the House to accept the motion.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: With the leave of the House. That is not good enough.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak for a second time in this debate.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary made no attempt to respond to the key issue in the debate
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. He cannot make a second speech on that basis.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee.

  ROYAL ASSENT
    SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must inform the House that I have not been able to select the amendments tabled in manuscript form.
  Clause 1

    QUALIFICATION FOR, AND TENURE OF, OFFICE
    Motion made and Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.—[Mr. Hoon.]
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I will respect your ruling, Sir Alan, and the House must abide by it. When Bills are taken at short notice, it is difficult for the House to obtain the best procedural value from the time available to us. We now have this clause stand part debate, and I intend to use it to focus again on the important questions that the Parliamentary Secretary utterly failed to answer.
    There was one point on which the hon. Gentleman gave an answer, but I do not agree with it. I shall make this point to explain why hon. Members are being asked to stay here on a Thursday evening. If the permanent secretary is not a lawyer and does not have five years' experience in the Department, there is a great deal of sense in having somebody else in an acknowledged senior position who does. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will address that.
    Mr. Hoon: I said on Second Reading that there is a senior legal adviser who works directly to the permanent secretary. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that such a figure, who is responsible for giving legal advice, is a sufficient satisfaction of his concerns.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am not satisfied with that. The very first point made by the Parliamentary Secretary when he was replying to the earlier debate was that this was simply a gaggle of lawyers articulating concern for a vested interest. I am a lawyer, and I am articulating concern for an interest, but it is not the interest of any private sector lawyer. I am concerned about the interest of 1,000 members of the Government Legal Service who hitherto have held this post for sound constitutional reasons.
    We modified it so that, on occasion, somebody who had spent five years in the Department might be able to take their place as permanent secretary. The Government now find that inconvenient, presumably because they do not have anybody who has spent five years in the Department whom they are willing to appoint, or because they wish to go outside Government to find somebody who does not fall within the requirements of the current statute—that may not be wholly stupid, and, as I have said, we are not seeking completely to block this Bill.
    However, it is important—the Parliamentary Secretary has not attempted to deal with this—that the Lord Chancellor should have at his right hand somebody with deep and practical experience of the workings of the Department, who has experience of close co-ordination

    443
    with the legal system generally, and the legal profession and the courts in particular. There is absolutely no reason why such a person should not be appointed as a deputy secretary.
    To say that, in government generally, the post of deputy secretary has been faded out in recent years, is a truism. We have moved towards a more flexible system of senior management. However, this is an exceptional situation, and I would not have thought that the Government were in principle so rigid and hidebound as to be unable to look for a small but exceptional answer to a substantial but exceptional problem.
    It is nonsense to say that no deputy secretary can be appointed in the Lord Chancellor's Department because there are no deputy secretaries in any other Department. It is not true. The Government could do that, and, if they are refusing to do so, they are being obdurate.
    6.45 pm
    I shall have to read Hansard to find out the Parliamentary Secretary's exact words about a senior legal adviser to the permanent secretary. We are asking for a senior legal adviser not to the permanent secretary but to the Lord Chancellor; somebody who has right of access to the Lord Chancellor's room in the same way as the permanent secretary. The permanent secretary can enter the Lord Chancellor's room on any occasion—it would be a strange Lord Chancellor who would not let that happen—to alert him to matters that may concern him. A deputy secretary should have that power. Why should he have that power?
    Mr. Hoon: Since we are proceeding in this manner, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that, for a considerable time, it has not been the responsibility of the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to give legal advice to the Lord Chancellor. That advice is given by a specialist unit within the Department, which is there to give such advice. As I explained at some length earlier, the permanent secretary is no longer required to give advice to the Lord Chancellor.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: That may be so, but it does not begin to answer the question. Obviously, I have not been the Lord Chancellor and I have not been junior Minister to the Lord Chancellor, although I dare to say that it was partly on my recommendation that such a post was created. I was Solicitor-General for five years, and I did all the Lord Chancellor's business in the House.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact, although the permanent secretary may not be the mainstream legal adviser to the Lord Chancellor, he has an important role in judicial appointments? When I was junior Minister to the Lord Chancellor it was made perfectly clear that I was excluded from any part of the functions relating to judicial appointments. The permanent secretary has that important role, and it is far from being administrative.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with my hon. Friend, and he has anticipated the very point that I was developing.
    444
    The Parliamentary Secretary should recognise, if he does not already from his six months or so in the Department, that we are not just talking about legal advice. We are talking about the long-standing comprehension of the legal system and the judiciary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said, we are talking about judicial appointments, probity in government, things that can go wrong, and the opportunity for effective feedback from within the Government Legal Service.
    The Government will not have to be in power for very long before they will find that Ministers who are not lawyers will want to do things which may not be consistent with the law. Civil servants who are "can do" civil servants will be appointed. In our parliamentary democracy, it is the Opposition's duty to point out such things, and I can recall occasions on which the Labour party in opposition pointed out that we had appointed people with too much of a "can do" attitude.
    Without revealing too many secrets, I can say that, in my role as a Law Officer over 10 years, I had to make it perfectly clear that the law had to be respected. Having done that, the law was respected. Lady Thatcher, when Prime Minister, was absolutely scrupulous in her adherence to the law. Naturally, she would push the bounds of government as far as possible in the direction that she thought was politically correct, but, once she was advised that that was as far as she could go, she would reign back and find another way to do what she wanted, if it was lawfully doable.
    I am sure that that would also be true of the present Prime Minister, and that he would have a deep respect for the law. However, if there is to be a deep respect for the law, the proprieties and the general understanding of how our constitution works, there must be somebody who can advise on that.
    The Lord Chancellor has an immensely busy job. He is far busier than earlier Lord Chancellors. There is now an administrative overlay for the management of the courts, which was not the case previously. It is largely because of that administrative overlay that the Government want the opportunity to appoint somebody from outside the ranks of the profession—indeed, if necessary, outside any significant experience in the Lord Chancellor's Department.
    The Minister said that the previous Government had already prepared the ground, by changing the requirement for a lawyer of 10 years standing to somebody who had spent at least five years in the Department. He is now trying to sweep that away, so that somebody who has spent little or no time in the Department, and therefore has no feel for matters, can have the Lord Chancellor's ear. It is obvious from the Minister's earlier replies that the senior legal people will have to go through the permanent secretary, who will filter out information before it reaches the Lord Chancellor.
    Even more important—as I imagine that the person concerned will be someone of great probity who will listen carefully to his legal adviser—that person will not have on-the-hoof experience. There will not be someone close to him who will hear the bells of propriety ring. Someone with an acknowledged position in the Department should be involved. Surely the Minister agrees that there will still be senior lawyers in high places in the Department.

    445
    What is needed is someone with an acknowledged position who has the ear of the Lord Chancellor as of right. Of course, out of courtesy that person would inform the permanent secretary before he went to see the Lord Chancellor—but he would be entitled to insist on going if the permanent secretary happened to say, "I do not think you should do that," or, "I would much rather you didn't do that." That is the sort of remark that tends to be made. It is the sort of remark that is made to lawyers. Of course, what tends to happen is that people do not really want too much legal advice, as it might not be terribly helpful.
    The matter is important on two levels. First, there is the immensely practical point that the Lord Chancellor should have immediately available the benefit of the long-standing, consistent experience of the profession, the judicial system and the legalities, in the knowledge that, as holder of the office, it is his duty to act a watchdog.
    If we were debating this issue with the Lord Chancellor now, I am sure that he would say that he could do a great deal of that for himself; but he would not be so arrogant as to say that he could do it all. The Minister, on the Lord Chancellor's behalf, should not be so arrogant as to suggest otherwise—[Interruption.] Perhaps I am doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice. However, that is why I say that he should look more carefully at the matter than he has so far shown himself willing to do.
    The second point relates to the Government legal service. I am not arguing for lawyers qua lawyers; I am arguing in favour of members of a highly honourable branch of the public service—the Government legal service—who have probably spent all their working lives from their late 20s or early 30s to retirement advising Government, while being conscious of the legalities, the difficulties, the management problems—
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way again. Does he accept that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent any lawyer from the Government legal service—or, indeed, any lawyer from any other position—from applying for the job and being considered alongside others who apply?
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Of course. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a point of any weight, he has not understood my argument. Rather than repeat it, I invite him to read it in Hansard.
    The 1,000 members of the Government legal service are attracted by the fascination of the work. The sheer level of legal work likely to be seen by a young man or woman in the service outstrips that which is available to all but a tiny handful of the Bar and solicitors' professions. No lawyer would gainsay that. Those lawyers in their 20s, 30s or even 40s in the Government legal service see matters of a weight and complexity that most private practitioners never see. Lawyers grow up in the service over many years, and build up a body of wisdom.
    When lawyers move on to the administration of justice and the courts—about which my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull knows so much because of his previous ministerial position—they know how a court case is run. Over the years, they have discussed the problems with the judges. When they become administrators, they bring with them a great background of real knowledge, just like those in the upper reaches of the health service who do a certain amount of administration.
    446
    Of course, sometimes people do not want to do that—they want to do clinical medicine and nothing else. However, it is hugely valuable to the health service when people with real hands-on experience of medicine go into management. That is how the Government legal service should work. There is a genuine danger, which, sadly, the Government are so far failing to recognise, that much of that will be lost or diminished if my sensible—indeed, friendly—suggestions, which I mentioned to the Lord Chancellor in advance of this debate, are simply brushed aside.
    There is also a point about agism. I do not think anyone has given much thought to that; I admit that I had not until a week ago. However, the more 1 thought about the valuable service given by permanent secretaries who have run one, two or three years over their time, the more I thought how stupid and doctrinaire it would be to get rid of them.
    That point deserves a sensible and reflective answer from the Minister—at least an answer along the lines, "As a junior Minister I cannot commit the Government here and now, but I will discuss the matter carefully with the Lord Chancellor. I promise that, even if this Bill passes all its stages in the House tonight"—as, I freely admit, I had anticipated—"I will consider the matter carefully before it goes to the other place, and at least seriously consider tabling amendments to meet the serious, sensible and reasoned objections that have been made."
    I very much hope that, when the Minister replies to the debate, I will receive a carefully considered and reflective answer to what I believe are genuine points of substance.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Even as we debate clause stand part, some emphasis should be laid—not least for the record—on the importance of judicial appointments when considering the qualities and qualifications that the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor should hold.
    As I said earlier, judicial appointments are scarcely a matter for the Executive. When I was a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, it was made abundantly clear to me—not in a menacing way, but in an entirely logical way—that my remit was to shadow the Lord Chancellor in all matters in the House of Commons, save judicial appointments. I was excluded from judicial appointments—quite rightly. They are personal to the Lord Chancellor and his immediate advisers.
    Judicial appointments do not relate just to the odd judge here or there—they relate to the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division, the Vice-Chancellor, the entire High Court bench, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, every recorder and deputy recorder in England and Wales, the circuit bench and every magistrate in England and Wales, save in Lancashire.
    The appointments are an enormous task, and a gigantic responsibility. Part of our security in the United Kingdom is based on our belief in freedom under the law. The law is very important, and the public's confidence in the law is extremely important. That public confidence begins with the Lord Chancellor's appointments.
    The Lord Chancellor probably has as many appointments in his gift as any other Minister. However, the eternal weariness for any Lord Chancellor begins once—or sometimes twice—a year, when he must preside over the incredibly difficult and delicate matter of

    447
    determining who shall be appointed Queen's counsel and take silk, thereby reaching the zenith of a Bar career. What joy for those who take silk, and what utter dismay for those who are not chosen! In making the appointments, the Lord Chancellor has the most thankless role imaginable.
    7 pm
    Members of the Bar certainly do not regard that assessment of their worth as being administrative. Even now, I suggest that it is right for hon. Members to bear in mind the many roles of the Lord Chancellor. He sits in the other place—in a role equivalent to yours, Mr. Lord—on the Woolsack, he performs a thankless task in making judicial appointments, and he runs what has become a most controversial Department. As many hon. Members have pointed out in this debate, the Lord Chancellor's Department has changed from being a relatively small office with a relatively small range of functions into a very big Department that has in many ways entered the very centre of political argument.
    Legal aid has become a much-argued-over benefit. It is part of the welfare system, and has its boundaries. People are disappointed if they do not receive a legal aid grant, and they cannot discern fairness in the system if they see someone else receive one. When I was a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, at least half of each Question Time was taken up with often argumentative and frequently aggressive questions on legal aid.
    When questions were not on legal aid, they were on the provinces and jurisdictions of magistrates and magistrates courts committees. The magistracy has been in the United Kingdom for 600 years and is independent of the circuit court system. It is the jewel in the crown of the judicial system. Appointments to the magistrates' bench are delicate and crucial. There have been political arguments over the political complexion of magistrates, and questions such as, what does the balance of the magistracy look like? Are there more of these, or more of those? Those matters are worth arguing and debating.
    Magistrates are fiercely independent.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is most eloquently making the key point. He has referred to the legal aid system and to the magistracy, and undoubtedly he is about to refer to the court system. If one is to administer those systems, one must understand them. Does he not agree that, without having available a senior person who has been through the mill and understands it, the Department will be diminished?
    Mr. Taylor: I could not agree more with my right hon. and learned Friend, because he has stated the case exactly.
    I realise that legal aid is run by a semi-independent agency. Nevertheless, that agency spends taxpayers' money, and it is now spending about £1 .5 billion per annum, which is a very serious sum. In many ways, it is to be welcomed that the new Labour Government are developing thoughts that might have existed in a previous Administration—but I will not go over that ground.
    The Government are showing some fortitude in dealing with the legal aid system, which must be dealt with. The Comptroller and Auditor General has qualified the
    448
    accounts of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the past six years. The Department's accounts have not passed muster, because there has been no evident control over legal aid spending.
    I wanted primarily to deal with the permanent secretary's role in judicial appointments, but, in doing so, I have enlarged my case by saying that he holds an important political and mainstream governmental role, with heavy judicial responsibility. Rightly, the qualities of the person to do the job are closely scrutinised. In this debate, I hope that Conservative Members have been trying to scrutinise those qualities closely.
    Mr. Burnett: For the reasons that I have already given on Second Reading, we support the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the two points that I made in that debate. For his recollection, I will repeat them, but in precis form.
    The first point was on the method of selection for the permanent secretary. The second point—for which I quoted from Sir Peter Middleton's recent report on legal aid—was to question whether the Government are minded to concentrate the various judicial functions and the various Departments into one separate, distinct Ministry.
    Mr. Hawkins: I expressed some concerns about the Bill in the Second Reading debate. The longer debate on the Bill continues—both on Second Reading and in Committee—the more my concern increases. I paid generous compliments to the Minister in the earlier debate, but I may have overstated them. He has certainly failed to respond to the very legitimate concerns—particularly on the lack of consultation—raised by my hon. Friends and myself.
    As the Minister may recall, I served on the Bar Council for seven years, until 1995, when I became a parliamentary private secretary. For the last three of those years, I was on the council's general management committee, which acts as a type of inner cabinet. In my remarks earlier today, it had certainly not occurred to me—the fact was revealed later, by questioning by Conservative Members—that there had been no consultation on the Bill with any of the legal professional bodies. The Bar Council has not been consulted, the Law Society has not been consulted, and even the civil servants' trade union has not been consulted.
    It is becoming increasingly apparent that Ministers have been caught out practising government by press release, by spin doctoring and by anything other than the normal democratic process. I am particularly pleased that Conservative Members have followed up on some of the attacks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) on the Government's attempt to push through the Bill without debate.
    The manner in which the Bill has been passed will be very much noted among the professional bodies, who will regard it as a straw in the wind, or perhaps even more, showing the extent to which they will have to watch the Government—as Conservative Members intend to watch the Government—every step of the way. Ministers are constantly attempting to evade debate and to move it away from the Chamber and from those of us who have been democratically elected to scrutinise legislation, and to pass on the blind side as many measures as possible.

    449
    The Government have clearly been caught out trying to pass this Bill on the blind side, but they have not succeeded—thanks to the vigilance of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and other hon. Members. The Bill's passage has provided a classic example.
    I hope that the Minister will do the House the courtesy of addressing the very serious issues raised by hon. Members in this debate. We still have absolutely no answer to many questions. What about the issue of people who have given long and loyal service in the Lord Chancellor's Department and who will be unable to continue doing so beyond a purely arbitrary age limit? Such a limit is clearly against the public interest, and the House will have to hear the Minister's answer to that question.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—who served as a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department in the previous Government—has raised a much more serious issue, which I will not repeat, and could not deal with half so well. It is absolutely essential that the person who holds the job of permanent secretary should himself have the legal experience necessary to discharge the functions of advising the Lord Chancellor on judicial appointments—of which there are so many, as my hon. Friend said—or, at the very least, have a deputy who has legal qualifications or long experience of service in the Department.
    How can someone who has pursued an administrative career path but has no experience of the specific mysteries and specialist concerns of the law possibly discharge the function of properly advising the Lord Chancellor? All hon. Members who have some experience of the legal profession are bound to be worried about that especially serious concern. We want the Minister to deal with such points in his first response to the clause stand part debate.
    Finally, I had hoped for better from the Minister than the high-handed approach which I know has come to him from those in other offices in the Government. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio has been sending him pager messages, telling him to dismiss all the relevant points that my colleagues have been making, but I hope that at long last we shall hear a proper answer.
    Mr. Grieve: I want to pick up a point that arose earlier. The Minister suggested dismissively that because in 1990 there had been an alteration to the previous requirement that the permanent secretary be a lawyer, the arguments being advanced by Opposition Members about the likely changes that the present proposals would make to whether the permanent secretary was a lawyer were irrelevant.
    Mr. Hoon: Bogus.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister is excelling himself in the courtesy he extends to Conservative Members. The matter clearly requires even more prolonged discussion.
    An alteration was made in 1990. I should be interested to hear what position Labour Members took on it. It was possible, in certain circumstances, to enable a civil servant who had experience of the Department, but who might not be legally qualified, to become a permanent secretary. I do not disagree with that for one moment, because, as I told the Minister on Second Reading, I accept that the
    450
    Department had a complex role and that its administrative role had grown considerably. I said that I had some sympathy for the underlying problems that might have led to the Bill being introduced.
    Far from seeking to rubbish the Bill, I appreciate that there may be sound reasons for it. I should like the Minister to present them to us, but I am at a loss to understand why the Government are attempting to rush it through the House without consultation.
    The permanent secretary shoulders a great burden of responsibility. It is all very well our being told that the legal adviser will always be there, but he is there to advise on legal matters. The Minister knows, or should know, given his qualification as a barrister, that, although the legal profession may have its detractors, one of its strengths is that, within a relatively small compass, there is a large pool of talent comprising solicitors and barristers who are capable of going on to hold high judicial office. It is one of the principal roles of the permanent secretary to identify them, to maintain good links with the judiciary and the relevant professional bodies and to advise the Lord Chancellor about them. I infer—I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—that the legal adviser has absolutely no role whatsoever in that. Therefore, our arguments are relevant.
    It is not acceptable to introduce the Bill simply because it is administratively convenient. The previous arrangements spelled out in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as amended, state, significantly, that the first consideration is whether a person is legally qualified and that the secondary is to ascertain whether a person, if not legally qualified, has at least five years' service in the Department. I have examined the statute carefully.
    Any changes should not be rushed. I am concerned about the absence of consultation, but I am perhaps even more concerned that such a Bill should be rushed through simply because it happens to be administratively convenient in November 1997. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the points that I have outlined and to treat Opposition Members with the courtesy that I hope we have extended to him.
    Mr. Hoon: I have been asked to consider the arguments carefully. I hope that hon. Members agree that I set out carefully at the beginning of Second Reading why it was necessary for the Government to introduce the Bill at this stage. If there were any doubts about the need to change the present restrictions, the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) put them very well. He said that the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department was an important political, mainstream Government role. He outlined the responsibility that anyone who holds such a position should have.
    Opposition Members have confirmed me in my view that it is vital that the Lord Chancellor's Department should have the same opportunity to select a permanent secretary as is available to other major Departments of State. In making that selection, the Lord Chancellor's Department should not be constrained by rules that have long since lost their function. In my careful presentation at the beginning of Second Reading, I rehearsed the history of the matter. I am sorry that Opposition Members did not listen with sufficient care and attention as I pointed out that the problem surrounding the question of legal advice has long since passed into history. I hope

    451
    that that deals satisfactorily with the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell).
    7.15 pm
    The right hon. and learned Member also referred to the retirement age. Once again, the Bill is designed to bring the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department into line with that of every other permanent secretary. It will be possible for the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department to stay on by arrangement beyond the age of 60, with the agreement and co-operation of the head of the civil service. That is exactly the position of every permanent secretary.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister clarify what difference the Bill is making? How is the Bill changing the situation?
    Mr. Hoon: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the formal retirement age is to change, but he was anxious that we should recognise the skills and qualities of someone who might attain the age of 60 but who still has a considerable contribution to make to the country. I am clarifying for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the position of the permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department and, indeed, that of any other permanent secretary. In the circumstances that we are debating, it will be possible, by arrangement, for a person to continue in post.
    The hon. Member for Bolton, West and Torridge—
    Mr. Burnett: Torridge and West Devon.
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman made two points. First, the Government remain committed to an independent civil service. The selection process will be the same as for other permanent secretaries. Secondly, we shall consider the Middleton recommendation for a single Ministry of justice. We are already considering Sir Peter Middleton's recommendations, but I have to say that the Government have no present plans to implement the particular recommendation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    I was greatly entertained by the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but I should perhaps not rise to the bait. He was more moderate in Committee than on Second Reading. The constitution seems likely to survive the shock that the modest change introduced by the Bill might cause it. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's willingness to watch the Government every step of the way. I assure him that in this Parliament he will have plenty of watching to do as we ensure that the promises made to the electorate in the Government's manifesto, on which Labour was elected overwhelmingly—including to the Blackpool seat that he formerly occupied—are carried out.
    I cannot avoid dealing with the argument put forward by the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that we are rushing the Bill through on the blind side. They both know full well that
    452
    it was thoroughly advertised—as is all business in the House—on the previous Thursday. Only very recently have the Conservatives decided to prolong the debate. The proposal is modest and I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Pope.]
    7.21 pm
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief, because my points are easily understood. I regret that the Minister, who, I believe, has a degree from Harvard, has answered only one of my questions and has not sought to respond to the detailed points that I put to him about the role of a deputy secretary in the Department.
    I am grateful to the Minister for answering about the ability of a permanent secretary in any Department to continue in office after the age of 60 if the public interest requires it. To some extent, his helpful answer has allayed my concern. However, he must know that he has not addressed my detailed and formidable arguments about why there should be someone in the Department with a particular responsibility and the opportunity to have the ear of the Lord Chancellor to deal with the many non-administrative matters that are profoundly important to that unique office, should the Lord Chancellor require it or should a senior person realise that he needs it and that it is his duty to give it.
    I very much hope that that point will be pursued further in another place and that the Government will reflect more closely on my detailed arguments before the Bill reaches another place. I hope that they look sympathetically, albeit not in this House, on amendments such as those that I have suggested.
    7.23 pm
    Mr. Forth: The debate has covered substance and style. It is right that the substance of the Bill should be considered. I say that it should be, but that requires the participation not just of the Opposition, carrying out their duty to scrutinise proposals, but of the Government, personified in this case by the Minister. I regret that he has failed to satisfy us on the key issues that we have raised time and again. He has given scant regard to our arguments of substance about the nature of the position of permanent secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, the role of that individual and the qualifications required. He has failed to persuade us that the matter is as simple as he has argued, however brief, peremptory and superficial those arguments were.
    The Minister has not deal at all with the mandatory age of retirement of the permanent secretary. That may appear to be a subsidiary detail, but its importance ranges beyond the measure before us, because it sends out a signal. We are being asked to approve the idea of a mandatory civil service retirement age of 60. I am not satisfied with

    453
    that. In the one Department that has some flexibility, we are doing away with it and imposing a mandatory retirement age. That is a gratuitously unnecessary proposal which the Minister has made no attempt to justify. It is important that our objections should be firmly on the record. I hope that we shall return to the matter at an appropriate time.
    The debate has also been about style. If the Minister had listened carefully to our arguments, put in good faith, and had attempted more comprehensively and courteously to reply, he might have made rather more rapid progress. I say that in as friendly a way as I can. He may wish to reflect on that. However, that is water under the bridge, and need not be dwelt on unduly.
    The Minister has laboured the point several times that we should all have known about the Bill. He has told us that there were understandings and that he is mystified as to why so much fuss has been made. I am a humble out-of-touch Opposition Back Bencher. I am not privy to conversations that may take place in dark corners and secret locations. I read the Order Paper in good faith. Today's Order Paper says:
    "Supreme Court (Offices) Bill: Second Reading
    Remaining stages may also be taken."
    I take the word "may" at face value. The Order Paper does not say that deals have been done and understandings have been reached, so we should not look at the matter too closely and get away early; it says that the remaining stages may be taken. To me, that means that, if there has been satisfactory consideration on Second Reading, if there are no points of substance dividing the Opposition and the Government and if those who have taken the trouble to attend the debate and listen to the Minister are satisfied, it would be proper for the matter to be dealt with rather more rapidly than most other measures.
    None of those conditions has been fulfilled. It was not only proper, but a duty, for the Opposition to seek more elucidation from the Minister. The fact that we have failed is a matter of great regret, but we shall make a note for the future. Perhaps as well as reading the Order Paper I should make inquiries of those in the know to find out whether I shall be required simply to nod something through or whether I am expected to discharge my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament by scrutinising the Government's proposals. Those matters are all to be resolved.
    I hope that there is ample evidence on the record from the points made by Conservative Members that we are distinctly unhappy about the measure—its substance and the way in which it was brought to the House. We have tried not to be unduly obstructive—and, I think, succeeded. The Minister will be allowed to take his Bill forward.
    I hope that those in another place will read the report of this debate. They may well conclude that the Bill deserves more scrutiny and answers to the questions that were not answered in this House. Given that it is the Lord Chancellor's business, they may well take that opportunity. I hope that they do.
    7.28 pm
    Mr. Grieve: One or two points arise out of the way in which the debate has been conducted. One of the reasons
    454
    for having debate is that Ministers should answer questions that are asked. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department is always courteous and is normally assiduous in answering questions, which is not the case with most of his colleagues. In winding-up speeches, we are frequently treated to cheap moments of invective, the sidelining of points and a little bit of propaganda, after which the Minister sits down.
    I make that point because in Committee two pertinent questions were asked by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) which the Minister made no attempt to answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] I did not get that impression.
    Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman may have been confused by the fact that the Minister called me the Member for Bolton, West and Torridge.
    Mr. Grieve: I did not pick that point up.
    Will the Minister confirm that the Bill is not a prelude to merging two Departments to create a Department of justice? I assume that the Minister would have told us if that was the intention. On Third Reading, it would be helpful to have reassurance on that pertinent point. The present structure of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the marriage between the Executive and the judicial capacity embodied in the Lord Chancellor, which is valuable and unique to this country, would be seriously jeopardised if the Government intended to merge two Departments. I should be grateful for reassurance. On that basis, and as the matter has been well aired. I am happy to allow the Bill to proceed without a Division.
    7.31 pm
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to a lively debate. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) commented on the importance of style. He described the unhappy transformation that he appears to have endured—from powerful Minister and Privy Councillor to, as he rather sadly described it, humble out-of-touch Opposition Member. It may be a measure of the Conservative party's decline that such Conservative Members are here to deal with the matter at length.
    The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that we have had a full and detailed discussion. There are, however, one or two matters that, in the light of comments made on Third Reading, I must repeat for the avoidance of doubt. I have repeatedly said that there is a legal adviser in the Lord Chancellor's Department who works directly to the permanent secretary. I have stressed that point several times during our proceedings, but for the avoidance of doubt, I do so again.
    I answered the point about a Department of justice, but I repeat my answer: the Government have no present plans to act on Sir Peter Middleton's recommendation. I hope that Opposition Members are satisfied that the Bill introduces a very modest change that will benefit public administration by removing an outdated restriction that has become anomalous.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.33 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which bans any nuclear weapon test explosion and any other nuclear explosion. The United Kingdom is one of the states whose ratification is a precondition for the treaty's entry into force.
The contents of the Bill are, for the most part, highly technical, but that should not be allowed to obscure its much wider political significance. In simple terms, the Bill is about taking the next step—and a significant one, at that—towards the Government's goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons.
The Government are serious about that goal. We are committed to pressing for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. We have made it clear that, when we are satisfied with progress towards our goal of global elimination, we shall ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations.
We intend to make a difference in this area, as in so many areas of Government policy. We can make a difference, and we intend to do so. Our approach to multilateral disarmament will not be grudging and it will not be one that plays up the obstacles to progress in order to leave things as they are. We intend to be a constructive actor in the process, using our influence to move things forward where we can.
We also approach the matter in a practical fashion. We know that progress towards our goal requires the agreement of the other nuclear weapons states, including some with massively larger holdings than ours. Progress will also depend on the co-operation of the many other states that have no declared nuclear capacity. Let us be clear, however, that we have the vision and will to reach our goal and the commitment to build support for the steps that will mark the way. We shall look for progress simultaneously in a range of areas—transparency, confidence building and a fissile material cut-off treaty—as well as seeking to build on the warhead reductions already achieved. The Bill demonstrates the magnitude of the task, but it also underlines the fact that political will brings results. This Government will never concede that the task is hopeless.
The comprehensive test ban treaty is the culmination of almost 40 years of effort involving painstaking negotiations. When the parties to the non-proliferation treaty agreed a set of principles and objectives in 1995, they described a comprehensive test ban treaty as the next step on the road to nuclear disarmament. We are fully committed to the goals set out in those principles and objectives, and we welcome the CTBT now agreed accordingly. As its preamble makes clear, the treaty will constrain the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons, and end the development of advanced new types. That is truly an important step forward.
456
The United Kingdom signed the treaty on 24 September 1996. Some 147 other states have now signed the treaty and seven have ratified it. It will come into force six months after the 44 states named in its annexe have ratified it. Those states all took part in the negotiations on the treaty in the conference on disarmament in 1996 and are listed by the International Atomic Energy Authority as having a civil nuclear capability. The United Kingdom is one of those states, 41 of which have already signed.
North Korea, Pakistan and India still have not signed. We are doing what we can, both unilaterally and in concert with others, to encourage all three states to sign and ratify the treaty quickly. A question mark, however, must remain over their commitment to the eventual goal of global nuclear disarmament if they stand in the way of the necessary interim steps.
We are making swift progress with the legislation needed to ratify the treaty. Indeed, when the Bill was introduced in another place, it passed through unamended. We hope to be the first nuclear weapons state to ratify; that will be a further demonstration of our commitment to the treaty, to nuclear disarmament and to non-proliferation.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, who played such an important part in getting the treaty signed in 1996, as the Minister mentioned earlier?
Mr. Lloyd: I have no difficulty in paying tribute to those who took part in a step which I have described as significant. It would be churlish to say that those who played a part did not contribute to taking events forward.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my next words in the spirit in which they are intended. The world has to do a lot more and we shall look for his support when we begin to push the agenda forward in the weeks and months to come. The real battle concerns where we go next. The Bill has already completed its passage of the other place unamended, and I am sure that we shall see the same co-operation in this House.
The treaty establishes a number of new international bodies to ensure that its provisions are properly observed. A comprehensive test ban treaty organisation will be set up in Vienna once the treaty enters into force. It will work closely with the International Atomic Energy Authority and other relevant organisations.
Part of the treaty organisation will be a technical secretariat, which will be responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the treaty. To that end, the treaty will set up an international monitoring system, which will consist of a worldwide network of monitoring stations. A number of those are in the United Kingdom and dependent territories.
The stations will use various technologies to detect, identify and locate the source of a suspicious event anywhere in the world. The data from the stations will be transmitted to an international data centre, which will be part of the technical secretariat in Vienna. The international data centre will then make the information available to state parties. Meanwhile, until entry into force, a preparatory commission is working in Vienna to develop the many detailed arrangements for implementation of the treaty, including the establishment of the international monitoring system.

457
The verification regime in the treaty provides for consultation and clarification in cases of indications of possible non-compliance. If necessary, and if a certain proportion of state parties agree, an on-site inspection can start within 96 hours of it being requested. The inspections will be carried out by trained inspectors chosen from an agreed international list of experts, who will report back to the technical secretariat and state parties.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On verification, how concerned are the Government about the fact that there appear to have been explosions in, for example, the Russian arctic, which it appears seismic technology has not been capable of verifying as definite nuclear explosions? Is not verification the crucial issue? After all, we had only a partial nuclear test ban treaty—a treaty covering only atmospheric explosions—because it was impossible for many decades to check what was going on underground. If explosions are taking place which have not been correctly verified, a large part of the rationale for the treaty could be undermined.
Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observation. It is, however, our view that the events in the Russian arctic were much more likely to have been caused by an earthquake. Britain has significant relative expertise in seismic areas, and it was certainly the view of our experts that that was the most likely course of events. The advantage of a CTBT coming into operation is that it will provide a challenge mechanism—an opportunity where there are doubts about the credibility and good faith of the parties to the treaty—that will enable an inspection to be set up and conducted very quickly. The treaty will enable us to do a lot more than we are able to under the present system. It both advances the need for science, in which countries such as Britain have expertise, and provides an opportunity for us to pursue matters beyond simple scientific measuring from a distance, by enabling us to look actively at what happens on site. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister say something about sub-critical explosions and the concern that tests of very small weapons—mini neutron bombs and the like—which may find themselves excluded from the treaty de facto, could occur because it is difficult to know whether they have taken place? Will the Minister give a view on those problems?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right; sub-critical tests are not prohibited by the treaty. It is necessary, in order to maintain not only the viability but the safety of existing nuclear weapons systems, that sub-critical tests are part of the opportunities available to all nuclear weapon states. Rather than seeing the issue as potentially threatening, I suggest that it is the opposite. It is a necessary safeguard for the whole world that nuclear weapon states maintain the opportunity to take advantage of sub-critical tests. I hope that that reassurance will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. The issues are important.
The United Kingdom has for many years had a national research programme into the means of detecting and verifying nuclear explosions. The programme enabled the United Kingdom to play a major role in the negotiations on how best to verify the treaty. We aim to retain
458
a national capability to allow us to reach an independent judgment on the data produced by the international monitoring system. That will strengthen our ability to justify a request for an on-site inspection of exactly the kind that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and I have been discussing.
With the advent of the treaty, the implications of any changes or deterioration in our Trident warheads will have to be assessed without nuclear testing. Similarly, after any corrective action or refurbishment, we will have to requalify warheads as safe and reliable without nuclear testing. Those requirements will place great demands on the alternatives to nuclear testing. I can tell the hon. Member for Chichester that we intend to use experiments and computer simulation for that purpose. Both are consistent with the terms of the treaty. I hope that the House will accept that that is agreed by all parties to the treaty, not just by the nuclear weapons states.
The treaty requires each state party to establish a national authority to act as the point of contact with the treaty organisation and to be the focal point for the operation of the treaty on its territory. In the UK, the national authority will be set up in the Ministry of Defence.
Although notes on clauses will be available in the Library, I shall turn briefly to the Bill's provisions. As its title suggests, its provisions fall into two broad categories: those relating to the prohibition of nuclear explosions and those enabling inspections to be carried out in the UK under the terms of the treaty.
Clauses 1 and 2 make it an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, to cause a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, other than a nuclear weapon explosion carried out in the course of an armed conflict. The offence can be committed in the United Kingdom by anyone. Abroad, the offence can be committed by UK nationals and corporations.
Clauses 4 to 9 cover various aspects of inspections in the UK, such as their formal authorisation by the Secretary of State and the necessary privileges and immunities for the inspection teams. Clause 10 covers the issue of warrants authorising entry and search of premises if offences are suspected. Clauses 11 to 15 contain various technical provisions, and also provide for the Act to bind the Crown.
As I said at the outset, although the Bill is essentially technical, it nevertheless has a significance way beyond that narrow technical remit. It is a genuine pleasure to hold my office at a time when such a significant step on the way to our undoubted goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons is being taken. In passing the measure, the House will be playing its part in that process. The Government's commitment is that, once we have taken this step, we will return with determination to the task of carrying the agenda forward.
7.46 pm
Mr. David Faber: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House and echo his warm words of support for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. The Opposition welcome the Bill. As he said, it received a fair wind in another place. We recognise that it provides the legislation necessary to ratify the treaty. He has given us a very full and detailed technical explanation of the Bill's contents, for which I am grateful.

459
Like the Government, the Opposition believe that the world will ultimately be a safer place through the signing of the treaty. The signing of the treaty and discussion of the Bill show that the international community can, by acting with determination, while making sacrifices, reap the benefits at the end of the cold war and the desire for a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of all countries throughout the world.
The former Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, said on the very day that he signed the treaty in New York on 24 September last year:
"It is our firm conviction that this treaty is in the interests of all, and I urge all states to give it their full support."
The full support of all states is, of course, crucial to the success of the treaty.
As the Minister rightly said, the signing of the treaty has come after a long process—many decades—of negotiation. Since 1989 particularly, we have seen profound and significant changes throughout Europe. More people than ever now live in democratic societies. The spread of democracy has made war less likely and the curtailment of the arms race ultimately more achievable.
Threats to our society remain, however, and it is only right that we, as a country and as part of the international community, should recognise and be alert to them. The Opposition remain absolutely committed to our nuclear deterrent and to keeping it fully serviced and updated to counter any potential threat we might face.
It is a shame that the Minister of State did not take the opportunity to reassert the Government's—and his personal—support for the retention and upgrading of the nuclear deterrent, given that he and many of his colleagues have called for the cancellation of the Trident programme in the past.
As Baroness Symons pointed out on Second Reading in another place, the implications of the treaty are profound, and the Minister of State rightly reminded us of that. Any deterioration in the Trident warheads will have to be assessed without recourse to nuclear testing. Such requirements will undoubtedly place an ever greater demand on the computer simulation techniques that provide an alternative and on the shared information and technology that we pool with our allies. However, I know that all hon. Members will agree that that is preferable, and that the treaty must succeed in its ultimate aim to do away for ever with nuclear testing, of whatever sort, and thus lead to a steady reduction in the world's nuclear arsenal.
The Minister of State was helpful in his explanation of the mechanisms in the Bill and the organisations that will flow from it for the monitoring and inspection of nuclear weapons, and he answered questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). However, he skirted quickly over the issue of ratification. He said that, to date, 147 countries had signed the treaty. According to the Library, 148 countries have signed the treaty, but perhaps the Library has added a country. Of those 147, only seven have so far ratified the treaty and, of the 44 required to sign to bring the treaty into force, I understand that only Japan has ratified it.
I do not suggest that the vast majority of states have anything other than an intention to ratify the treaty, and it is accepted under international law that a moratorium
460
comes into effect once the process of ratification has begun. Both France and China have now agreed to abide by that understanding. However, problems exist in other countries. The Minister of State mentioned three in particular and I shall turn to those in a moment.
The most important country involved is the United States. Does the Minister of State have any information from his American counterparts about when ratification will take place there? President Clinton recently told the United Nations Assembly that the treaty would be presented to the Senate shortly, but some in American political circles are concerned about several aspects of the treaty, including compliance verification and the safety and reliability of their nuclear arsenal. Clearly, it is important that the rest of the world see that the one remaining super-power takes a strong lead, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will encourage American ratification as soon as possible. It is important that we, as another major nuclear power, set a good example, and I assume that the United Kingdom will ratify the treaty as soon as possible after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
On the vexed question of the signature of the treaty by India and Pakistan, it is of primary importance that India signs the treaty, as it is likely that Pakistan would follow suit. On Second Reading in another place, Lord Jenkins of Putney called on the Minister to use Labour's long and, for the most part, friendly relationship with India to push for a resolution to the problem. At that stage, he could not predict the Foreign Secretary's disastrous visit to India this summer and the insensitivity that he showed to the Indian Government.
I was surprised that the Minister of State made no mention of the trip in his speech. Can he tell us anything about the discussions that the Foreign Secretary had with his Indian counterparts? Did he push for Indian ratification, and what response did he get? Baroness Symons referred to the sacrifices made by this country in signing the treaty and to the moral arguments that the Government would bring to bear on India. What were those arguments, were they forcefully made, and what response was received?
The most worrying case is that of North Korea. It is clear that, in spite of repeated warnings from the international community, North Korea continues to develop and improve its ballistic capability. Whether it yet possesses the technology to put nuclear warheads on those ballistic weapons, we do not know. However, we live in dangerous times. Economic deprivation is rife in North Korea, and the leadership is constantly looking for ways to deflect local attention from the domestic crisis. Anti-western rhetoric is usually the favourite course and we have all seen many examples of that.
When the former Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, visited South Korea in January this year, he made clear the then Government's support for the United States policy in the region. The response in one of the North Korean newspapers was to condemn his bellicose utterances. It continued:
"Our people and army are keeping a close eye on the British military whipping up war fever in the Korean peninsula."
I understand that the Minister and some of his colleagues may have a problem, because in the past many of them have held strong views on Korea. Indeed, the Minister has gone so far as to describe American troops in South Korea as a major obstacle to peace talks and to call for their withdrawal. Can he tell us about the

461
Government's view of the continuing tension in that country and how it might be persuaded to sign the test ban treaty? Is it now the policy of the Government to stand four square alongside our United States allies in that region?
On Second Reading in another place, Lord Moynihan referred to the real problems that the world faces as a result of the possible proliferation of rogue states. Some such states seem positively to revel in their status as the bad boys of the world. While the specific strategic threat to Europe from a communist Soviet Union may have evaporated, we are only too aware of—and frequently debate—the many localised flashpoints around the world.
The procurement of nuclear weapons by several states could quickly turn localised problems into very real concerns for the international community. Both Iran and Libya appear to be working hard to develop their nuclear capacity and to acquire the technology. In Iraq, the situation is very tense, and it is worrying to suppose that the reason why the Iraqi authorities have suddenly cut access for United Nations inspectors is because they have been close to discovering evidence of a nuclear programme. What are the Government's current views on the stand-off in Iraq? Can the Minister confirm that we also stand four square alongside our United States allies on that issue?
No less a figure than the Foreign Secretary himself once criticised the bombing of Baghdad during the Gulf war because it would make it more difficult to achieve peace and security. I hope that that is no longer his view, because those sentiments now seem out of place and old-fashioned. I hope that we are maintaining good relations with the United States and doing all that we can to support the United Nations inspection regime in Iraq.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield reminded us, the Conservatives are proud of the role played by the previous Government in bringing the treaty to fruition. We will do all we can to support the Government in pushing for ratification by all the states. I look forward to ratification by this country as soon as possible and to the Government playing an enthusiastic role in persuading others to do likewise. Once that is achieved, the treaty can begin to fulfil its vital role.
7.57 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to speak on this important Bill and to welcome whole-heartedly its speedy introduction by the Government. I hope that it makes fast progress through the House, because it is an historic Bill and will achieve a result that we have desired for a long time. It is surprising that, after the sound and fury of the preceding debate, in which many Conservative Members felt prompted to participate, the Opposition Benches are much emptier for proceedings on this Bill, which is of much more significance than the privileges of lawyers.
The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty is an important stepping stone to what I am sure everyone wants to see—the eventual multilateral elimination of nuclear weapons. I hope that ratification will take place at the earliest possible opportunity. However, as the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) has suggested, there are problems with ratification. It is no fault of the Government—or even of the previous Government's negotiations—that the ratification process will be so
462
rigidly applied that it will be difficult to ensure that the worldwide ban comes into effect at the earliest opportunity.
The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the three states that are refusing to sign, or have said that they are not prepared to do so at the moment. The situation in India and Pakistan is different from that in North Korea. We should—perhaps we do—have some influence with the Governments of India and Pakistan. The Foreign Secretary, in what we are told was a thoroughly successful trip to the Indian sub-continent, may have had discussions on that points, and I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is the case. Those countries are also members of the Commonwealth, and if that is to mean anything, it surely means that we can apply influence on a matter of such great importance.
There is also a problem with the United States, where a two-thirds majority is needed to achieve ratification. The chairman of the Senate's foreign affairs committee may have a different view from some Senators on this. Are there measures that the Government can take to reassure our American allies and allay doubts in the American legislature?
Baroness Symons said in another place on 24 July that the British Government would do all they could to encourage the signing and ratification by all states. I should be interested to know what progress has been made towards that objective and what action the Government have taken to engage the attention of allies around the world and encourage them towards signature and ratification.
There are also problems for Britain in the application of the treaty. Only America has the computer technology available to simulate testing and ensure proper maintenance. It is an interesting reflection on Britain's independent deterrent that the only way we can test it is to go to America. Therefore, America has complete control over our deterrent.
Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of the software used by the United States for computer simulation was developed in the United Kingdom by UK engineers?
Mr. Heath: I am aware of that, but it is under the control of the United States. Does Britain have the technology to provide a British alternative to testing and simulation in this country so that we do not have to subscribe to an American hegemony? How else are we to know whether the warheads on the British deterrent are safe and functional? That is a matter of importance if Britain is to have confidence in the process.
Mr. Tyrie: I think that I am right in saying that our nuclear weapons would be targeted from Omaha and, to all intents and purposes, co-operation would be required with the Americans for our missiles to be successfully launched and delivered to their target. In those circumstances, the idea of total independence is a fiction.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that I was seeking to make.
Is there no scope within the treaty for a commitment not to work on qualitative improvements to nuclear technology, and should not the British Government pursue

463
that as a further objective? It is absent from the treaty, but it is likely to undermine the confidence of non-nuclear powers if they are aware of further improvements in nuclear weapons technology made by the nuclear powers, yet outwith the terms of the treaty.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) made a good point about sub-critical testing, and the Minister's response was a little sanguine. However necessary sub-critical testing may seem to a Government undertaking it, it none the less undermines confidence in the process of non-proliferation and de-escalation of nuclear weapons. The Government have a role in urging their allies not to engage in actions that would undermine that process.
There may well be a legal requirement in the treaty. The hon. Member for Westbury referred to article 18 of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. That clearly lays a responsibility on other countries, following their signature on a treaty, not to do anything that would undermine the spirit of that treaty while awaiting its entry into force. I must ask whether American sub-critical testing does or does not do that. I must ask whether the underground tremor in the Russian arctic does that. The Minister was happy to ascribe that tremor to a seismic disturbance; I am not sure that everyone would do that, and certainly we do not have the technology to be sure. It is clear to me that all signatories must refrain from any behaviour that undermines the treaty as a whole.
Are we confident that we have the verification methods available to be sure that the treaty is being complied with? Is the sensor network sufficiently sophisticated? Does it have a sufficiently wide geographical spread? Is the international monitoring sufficiently robust to provide reassurance, as that is critical to the process?
There are further moves that the British Government could make. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North—East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred to some of those during the defence debate this week, and it would be otiose of me to repeat them. I hope that the Government, having taken the welcome step of introducing the Bill at an early stage, will apply all their energies to diplomatic initiatives to take the measure one stage further.
It is not good enough for our Government to stay silent when these matters are discussed. They must take the initiative so that we can move on to serious talks on strategic arms reduction. We could show an example by ensuring that the number of warheads on Trident is no less and no more than those on Polaris, which it replaces. That would show that we were prepared to take the initiative in moving global nuclear disarmament forward. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on those points, but meanwhile I repeat that the Liberal Democrats will give him every support to ensure the swift passage of the Bill through the House.
8.6 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Nobody who lived through the Cuban missile crisis could do anything other than welcome the Bill, and we hope that the comprehensive test ban treaty will soon be ratified. I recall when I was at school that an air-raid siren was placed on top of the building at the time of the Cuban crisis. There was a real fear among children in their early teens, as I was at the time. I hope that we never witness anything like that again.
464
During an intervention on the Minister, I talked about the role of the previous Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, but he was not just there to take part in discussions. A briefing prepared by the international affairs and defence section of the Library says:
"At the end of May 1996 the Conference chairman, Ambassador Ramaker of the Netherlands, proposed a solution based on a British idea."
The British idea emanated from the Foreign Office, which at the time was under the leadership of Malcolm Rifkind. Britain's idea was that all eight countries with nuclear weapons, as well as those "threshold nations" on the brink of having them—they may already have them—
"would have to ratify before entry into force, but they would not be singled out as such."
We must not forget the history since the Cuban crisis. Before I entered the House of Commons, I paid regular visits to the former Soviet Union. It was apparent that the citizens of the Soviet Union had no desire to witness or to take part in any nuclear war, as they well remembered that 24 million Russians died in the second world war. We should not, however, forget that in those days the Soviet Government were not answerable to the people of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union brought SS20 missiles into Czechoslovakia as it was then known, the German so-called Democratic Republic and Poland to threaten western Europe, many Labour Members who were members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament at the time, opposed the western and British Governments' reaction, the deployment of Cruise missiles.
It is a sad truth, but the doctrine of MAD—mutual assured destruction—kept the peace. Because there was nuclear balance, there was no nuclear war. We all hope that there will come a time when there are no more nuclear weapons in the world, but, as long as there are, there has to be such a balance. This treaty, when ratified by all the countries, will ensure that the balance will be maintained and that eventually there will he no more nuclear weapons.
8.10 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Obviously, I welcome the fact that the official Opposition are completely behind the Government in pushing the Bill through the House, as are the Liberal Democrats. It is an important Bill and I think that the whole House accepts that. Some of the welcome was perhaps less whole-hearted than it might have been under the circumstances.
I shall try to deal with a number of the issues of substance that were raised. Clearly, ratification is an important issue. There can be no doubt about that. I do not think that there is an argument that the treaty, as structured, went about the process of ratification sensibly. In the end, there has to be a global treaty to move the whole world forward. Therefore, we need ratification by all 44 states identified as would-be ratifiers to bring the treaty into operation.
It is a matter of fact that the present and the previous British Governments have been active in pursuing precisely that process on a global scale. In fact, we have taken part with our European Union colleagues in demarches to all the countries that have not already signed the treaty. We will continue to be active in that way, and we will certainly continue to pursue those who have not

465
signed and who look as if they do not want to ratify, and draw to their attention the fact that there is not only a moral but a practical imperative that they should take part in that process. Yes, we will be engaged and we will look for support from the whole House for our activities.
I am a little concerned that there should be doubts about the position of the United States. In a letter to the Senate seeking consent to ratification in September, President Clinton said:
"The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is of singular significance to the continuing efforts to stem nuclear proliferation and strengthen regional and global stability. Its conclusion marks the achievement of the highest priority item on the international arms control and non-proliferation agenda. Its effective implementation will provide a foundation on which efforts to control and limit nuclear weapons can be soundly based."
With that sort of endorsement, doubts about the attitude of the White House are misplaced. The White House certainly is using and will use its influence with the Senate; so do we with our American allies. If we explained to the American President that there were doubts in Britain about his role, he might take that as a slight on his intentions and his actions.
North Korea is already a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, which binds it not to test. Of course, that is not the same as signing the CTBT, and we want Korea to sign and to ratify it. That is important, and we will continue to put pressure on the North Koreans in every way we can, along with our allies and the world community. It is important to recognise that this is not some relic of the cold war, with part of the global divide pitted against others. The whole of the P5—Britain, the United States and France obviously, but also Russia and China—are as one on this treaty. We collectively have a common interest in ensuring that North Korea is party to the treaty. While we cannot give guarantees on that, the international community is collectively engaged on that issue.
I was asked about Iraq. Obviously, the position there is serious and we are greatly concerned. There may have been a slight easing of the Iraqi position, but the British Government's position is clear. We are absolutely committed to the role of the United Nations. We have been major contributors to the debate at the United Nations and we will continue to pursue the issue in a way that makes it clear to the Iraqis that there can be no compromise. The world cannot and will not allow compromise in that area. There should be no ambiguity there.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised a number of questions. To be slightly churlish in response to the slight note of churlishness that I detected from the hon. Gentleman, I thought that a little confusion was emerging. On the one hand, he said that Britain should do more in the area of sub-critical tests and maintaining our independent verification capacity, but he also raised doubts raised about whether those were necessary or were simply a prelude to a more dangerous and unstable world. Our position and that of all those who
466
negotiated the treaty is that the need to maintain a safe and reliable system under the CTBT allows for those sorts of test.
Mr. David Heath: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not equating computer simulation with sub-critical testing, because they are not identical. I would certainly differentiate between them. Britain should be engaged in developing the one; the other is unhelpful to the process. I had certainly hoped not to seem churlish about the Government in anything I said and I very much welcome the views that the Minister has expressed.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I simply say that safety and reliability are what we are about. That is also what the Americans and others are about. We believe that the international monitoring system works and should allow for the detection of explosions as small as 1 kilotonne on a global basis. That is a significant reassurance. It is far more than exists now. The simple truth of the treaty is that if it is brought into operation and ratified, it will provide the opportunity for inspections to be challenged and bring in a regime that the world lacks. In so doing, it will enhance the safety of the world. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS (PROHIBITION AND INSPECTIONS) BILL [Lords] [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PUBLIC HEALTH
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 2509), dated 21st October 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings),
That the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 11th December, Thursday 29th January, Thursday 26th February, Thursday 26th March, Thursday 4th June and Thursday 2nd July at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.

London Fire Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
8.17 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I thank the Chair for this opportunity to speak on the Adjournment about the London fire service and an issue that is topical and of immense concern to the people of London, who value the security provided by the service and are worried about the way in which it is being eroded.
The subject is topical for two reasons. First, I think that a request to approve specific cuts in fire service provision in London is sitting on the Minister's desk. It is also topical in a slightly broader sense, in that, within a few days, it will be the 10th anniversary of the King's Cross disaster, which was the last really catastrophic fire in London.
In preparing for this debate, I read some of the Fennell report on that disaster, and it makes striking reading. The great courage and professionalism of the firefighters comes across, as does the importance of precision timing, which is a matter of discipline, training and good management, as well as of equipment, of where the equipment is, and of the number of firefighters available. That ultimately comes down to resources—to money—and that is the subtext of our debate.
I want to speak from a Londonwide standpoint, but I also have a parochial interest. We have not had a catastrophic fire in Twickenham, but in recent memory there were two major events: the loss of a substantial part of our Tudor heritage in the Hampton court fire; and the devastating fire on Eel Pie island—a scenic spot that some hon. Members may know—that took out many industrial buildings and wiped away the livelihoods of many local artisans.
Fortunately, no loss of life was involved, but my constituents are very aware of the risks of fire. That awareness has been heightened by the fact that we have been the subject of severe cuts. In the cuts at the beginning of this year, we lost one of the three appliances in the local stations and another is shortly to be moved; we have effectively lost two thirds of our firefighting capacity. I am not an expert and do not know precisely what that means for response times, but common sense suggests that when cuts take place on a large scale the capacity of the fire service to respond to disasters is correspondingly diminished.
The London fire and civil defence authority has had to recommend the closure of two more fire stations: one in the Barbican—the only one left in the ring of steel of the City—and one at Shooter's hill, while four others have been reduced to part-time status. The problem is that that is neither the beginning nor the end of the process. Earlier in the year, 12 appliances were removed. Downham and Addington are on the long list of other places under threat, and many people are anxious about the future of their stations.
It is not merely a question of the approval of closure of particular stations and appliances; behind that—this is the nub of the debate—is a severe financial crisis. London Members will have received a letter from the chief fire officer, setting out the nature of the authority's financial problems. In the coming financial year it faces a deficit of about £21 million.
468
That deficit has not come out of the blue and is not a one-off event. As the chief fire officer clearly explains, the service has been trying to economise for years. It could not possibly be described as spendthrift or profligate; it has made savings of about £28 million a year; 10 per cent. of the staff have been cut in the past five years; and substantial reserves—£18 million, I believe—have been put towards preventing further closures.
The serious financial problem is marked out from those of other Government services by the extreme rigidity with which the service's finances have to be conducted. That rigidity stems from several elements. The service is a single-purpose local authority and does not have the capacity of local councils or the Government to switch resources from one activity to another. Rigidity is also a result of the capping system that the Government inherited. The capping limit is based on a highly restrictive spending assessment—allowing, I believe, less than 1 per cent. growth a year—that is far below the expenditure needs.
The system has been crippling for the service because its two main items of expenditure are entirely beyond its control and are growing considerably. One, which was determined only a couple of weeks ago, after the closure decisions were announced, is an increase in firefighters' pay of 4.8 per cent. a year—somewhat beyond the retail prices index. I do not begrudge firefighters extra pay, but it should be reflected in the financial provision for the service.
More serious even than pay is the problem of pensions. The service suffers the same problem as the police, some other parts of the public sector, and whole countries such as Italy, in that it is dependent on a pay-as-you-go system of pensions. About 20 per cent. of the service's budget now goes on pensions and the cost is escalating rapidly; I believe that there was 20 per cent. growth in pension provision last year, and about 50 per cent. over the past five years. A little mental arithmetic will show the Minister that far more money is needed than is being made available from central Government.
The problem is getting worse, partly for the good reason that firefighters are living longer. We all welcome that, but it means that their pension entitlements continue for longer. A special problem is looming: about 3,000 firefighters are due to retire in the next few years because of the bunching of recruitment in the 1970s, and each one of them will be entitled to a pension of about £10,000 a year.
All that is taking place at a time when the number of fire personnel is reducing, so we have a ridiculous state of affairs in which more and more retired firefighters have to be funded by fewer and fewer current firefighters, all of whom pay a substantial amount–11 per cent. of their pay, I think—into the scheme. The underlying financial position of the service is dire indeed.
I read the report of the actuaries who were commissioned to consider the problem in detail. Actuaries' reports are, by definition, not terribly exciting reading, but this report is in fact chilling. It describes a series of scenarios, based on different assumptions about pay and retirement rates and shows that, within the next five years, more than a third of the service's budget will have to go towards pension provision. That is simply not sustainable.

469
The problem has been looming for years, so why has not something been done about it? I notice that there is not a single Conservative Member present, but the Tories should be held to account. The matter was referred about four years ago to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who set up an inquiry into the pension problem, which was intended to report within six months; to the best of my knowledge, it has never reported.
The issue has been debated in the House: I looked up Hansard for March and May last year, when members of the previous Government made the most extraordinarily convoluted excuses for not dealing with the problem. The present Government have inherited the problem, but they now have the responsibility for doing something about it.
The excuses advanced were extraordinary. My predecessor, Mr. Jessel, who was a Member of Parliament for 27 years, may not have done a great deal that was memorable—I have paid him compliments in the House none the less—but, unfortunately for him, he will always be remembered for his comments on the fire service. Called upon to justify closures in the local service, he tried to explain that, as British households no longer used candles, we did not really need a fire service. Perhaps he did not mean it literally, but that unfortunate remark has gone down as his epitaph.
I am sure that the Minister would expect me to say that the Government should sign a large cheque, and that is indeed part of the answer, but the matter is more complex. We must consider each of the three major stakeholders in the future of the service. The London local authorities are involved, because it is a London problem and London people legitimately have to pay for it; it is a Government responsibility, because many of the key commitments, notably on pay, pensions and standards, are determined by Government; and there is an obligation on the service itself to maintain the highest standards of performance and flexibility. Everyone must make a contribution.
I start with local councils. A proposal is floating around, which I think originated with the chairman of the fire authority, that part of the fire service budget should be—I am not sure about the word—decapped, particularly its pension aspect. Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of the removal of capping as a matter of general principle, and that principle should apply to the fire service. The authority should be free operationally to make decisions and it should be accountable for them. Therefore, we would welcome a relaxation of capping.
But any capping which is so restricted to one item of expenditure does not deal with the problem and does not introduce any real operational flexibility in the system. Moreover, it would have a serious impact on London local authorities. There was a precept rise last year of 20 per cent. To meet the requirement entirely through local authority precepting would mean an increase, I think, of 50 per cent. this year, which would be regarded with considerable reserve by London local authorities. Clearly, they must make a contribution, but that cannot be seen as the major contribution to solving the problem.
That brings me to the second element of the package, which is the Government's contribution. Over the years, the problem has been that the fire service has operated within the national constraint of the spending assessment and the rate support grant growth has been totally inadequate. That now needs to be addressed. I appreciate
470
that the Minister does not control the budget, but I hope that he will at least have a vigorous conversation with his colleague in the Department of the Environment, who does, and explain to him that increased provision must be made for this item.
In terms of the total national budget we are not talking about large sums of money, but the Government have locked themselves into this extremely restrictive approach to public spending, which makes it difficult to switch money between Departments. That flexibility has been shown in respect of health and education, and this is one area where it will have to be found again.
One of the things that has struck me as a new Member looking at some of the emergency services in London is the extraordinary way in which the ambulance service and the Metropolitan police in particular have advanced in their thinking about management; about the way in which they run their internal affairs. Even the greatest friends of the fire service would say that it was probably some way behind them, but that is not the fault of the fire service. Many of those to whom I have talked in management, and the firefighters, have advanced ideas for making the service more flexible, but they are substantially constrained in what they can do by the law.
The principles of the fire service were set down in legislation in 1948, and they have not been changed for the best part of 50 years. It is required to observe procedures which relate to residential conditions and standards of risk which are inappropriate to present conditions; they must be modified.
Interesting ideas for raising money are being circulated by people in the fire service. I am not qualified to evaluate their technical feasibility, but they seem interesting and positive. The fire service is a centre of excellence in training, consultancy and risk, and for such services the commercial sector should be charged. I do not want to go the whole hog and see fire engines blazing through London with Coca-Cola or bra adverts on the side. That is probably not the kind of commercialism that we want to see. But there may be scope for doing much more. However, legislative provision is required for that. That is a way in which the Home Office can help the fire service to rise to the challenge of modernisation for the next century.
The responsibility is multifaceted. It is partly a responsibility that falls on the people of London to show that they are willing to pay a little more for this crucial service; it partly rests on the fire service itself to modernise, but above all, particularly given the locus of the debate, it rests on Government initiative to create the legislative framework for modernisation, and also to sort out this appalling financial mess which, unless something is done quickly, will result in a substantial and damaging reduction in services in the capital.
8.33 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing time for this important debate. I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me the opportunity to contribute.
I should say immediately that I was a member of the London fire brigade for some 23 years and an elected official of the Fire Brigades Union. I am now an out-of-trade member of that trade union.

471
I shall be brief, because the hon. Gentleman dealt comprehensively with the issues confronting the London fire service. But I want to focus on the key problems which, as the hon. Gentleman said, are primarily financial. As he said, they include the standard spending assessment, the resources allocated to the London fire brigade, and, in particular, the question of pensions.
With regard to the SSA, the amount of money afforded by Government to the London fire and civil defence authority has, as the hon. Gentleman said, dwindled in recent years. Some awards have been below inflation and some have certainly not met the service's needs, and that at a time when there is a clear rising trend in the number of calls received by the service.
The Fire Services Act 1947 takes no real account of the special services which these days the fire service is called upon to provide. It was drafted in the light of the brigade's ability to respond to fires. These days, a third of calls attended by the fire service are for special services, which range from the King's Cross disaster, to road traffic accidents, rail crashes, chemical incidents and humanitarian services. Under the Fire Services Act, the funding formula takes no account of the brigade's responsibility to carry out those tasks. The increasing pressure on the service has led to a growing belief that they should be taken into account and that the funding formula should be revisited.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the intensified pressure on the pension scheme. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, the previous Government were aware of the growing pressure resulting from the structure of the pension scheme. In the debate on the Queen's Speech in 1994, my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) said:
"I hope that we might get an assurance from the Government that, when the standard spending assessments are announced in the next couple of weeks, they will give some guarantee on disregards in the SSAs with regard to the rising costs of pensions within the fire and civil defence authorities. Unless that is done, there is a real prospect that we face dramatic cuts in the cover provided by the fire and civil defence authority in the next financial year.—[Official Report, 18 November 1994: Vol. 250, c. 293.]
As has been said today, that pressure is intensifying.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, firefighters contribute 11 per cent. of their salaries towards the pension scheme, but it is a non-funded scheme, which means that payments to retired firefighters come out of the revenue account. In the 1970s, firefighters were required to work 56 hours. In 1974, that was reduced to a 48-hour week and in 1979, to the present 42-hour week. As a result, there were some 2,000 new members of the fire service in London alone; their pensions are coming up for payment. The pressure which has been building up for some years will intensify during the next five years, and the situation will obviously deteriorate.
It is generally accepted that, as well as the increased number of calls to which the service responds, there is an increase in the diversity of calls that they have to attend. No one questions firefighters' professionalism and bravery, nor the public esteem in which the fire service is held. I understand from my dealings with the London fire and civil defence authority that every attempt is being made to address the financial crisis which it faces. Income
472
generation, efficiency measures, cuts over a number of years and private finance initiatives are all being considered as a way of mitigating a difficult situation in which the service finds itself.
Notwithstanding that, a number of London Members are obviously concerned and would jointly request an urgent examination of the funding formula to avoid the immediate crisis. A searching examination should be carried out to find medium and long-term solutions to the problems confronting a service that is regarded as a world leader. Unfortunately, it is in danger of losing that position.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has fought and campaigned for the fire service in his local area, as he did when he was the shadow spokesperson. He and his ministerial colleagues are doing all they can to find solutions to these problems. We welcome his contribution, and hope that he will tell us how much progress is being made on this important issue.
8.40 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate, and on the measured and responsible way in which he presented the issues.
The hon. Gentleman said that it comes down to resources and money, which is the subtext of the debate. Money may be the subtext, but an injection of cash cannot, in itself, resolve the problem, and that was acknowledged. The crisis in the London fire and civil defence authority is due to the fact that there are more fire service pensioners than firefighters in London. Critically, the pension scheme is not a fully funded scheme, but is run on a pay-as-you-go basis.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the complete absence of Conservative Members from the debate is significant. In the past 18 years, they had the opportunity in government to tackle the issues that were constantly raised about the impending problem in the London fire service, but they did not do so. They did not try to reform the pension scheme to take account of the 1970s bulge, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) alluded, which occurred when the fire service expanded its numbers, and thus the number of future pensioners. They did nothing, except to lay off 1,000 firefighters. That is the extent of the reduction in the number of firefighters in London under the Conservative Administration since 1985. It is shameful that the Conservative Benches are entirely empty.
Under the scheme, the authority presently has to make available 20 per cent. of its annual budget to pay its contribution towards current pensions. That shows the incoherence and unpredictability of such a pay-as-you-go scheme. There is no way of taking account of the vagaries of early retirement, perhaps through disability in service, or the increased longevity, thank goodness, of firefighters who have retired from the service. Incidentally, firefighters retire at age 50. Benefits under the scheme accrue rapidly, but firefighters start pension life at a much earlier age than is usual.
My hon. Friend referred to the 1947 Act, under which the early years of the pension scheme benefited by being on a pay-as-you-go basis. The number of pensioners at that time was small, so more of the revenue budget could be used for the needs of the service. In the early days,

473
the problems were not apparent, but they were predictable. The Government must now tackle those problems for the long term.
I echo my hon. Friend's words: he urged the Minister to examine the funding formula and to find a long-term solution to the problem. That can be achieved only by addressing the basis of the contributions to the pension scheme. I look forward the Minister's response to those aspects of the debate.
8.44 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) said. I was the legal adviser to the Fire Brigades Union for many years. Not having to do it myself, I appreciate how difficult and demanding is the job of a firefighter. The quality of the service given by the London fire brigade to the people of London and the bravery shown by its firefighters are second to none throughout the world. Firefighters deserve every penny that the pay formula, which has preserved industrial peace in the fire service since 1978, has provided this year.
There is a long-term need to update the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend referred to the problem of special service calls not being reflected in the funding formula for the fire service. Last year, under the previous Government, we lost one of the pumps at Hendon fire station in my constituency. Under the fire risk formula as it then was—there were arguments about how it should be interpreted—we were forced to accept that decision. However, if the special service risks in the area had been taken into account, I do not think that the removal of that pump could have been justified.
The A41, the A1, the M1 and the north circular road all go through my constituency; a major expansion at Brent Cross is about to take place; we have the main railway line up to the west coast; and we had the IRA bomb at Staples Corner several years ago. We could have special service calls to rail crashes, car crashes and bomb incidents, but that is not reflected in the fire service allocation, so we lost our pump at Hendon. Because the 1947 Act is out of date, the neighbouring constituency of Finchley lost its emergency tender. This year is the golden jubilee of that Act, and I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that it will be examined in the long term.
The pension scheme is generous, but it needs to be. Firefighting is a dangerous job, and we must make the scheme attractive to firefighters. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is wrong in saying that firefighters retire at 50: they retire after 30 years' service or at age 55, whichever comes first, and senior officers retire at 60. Having seen firefighters who are approaching that age, I think that no one would begrudge that retirement date. Given the physical demands of the job, few people of that age could cope with the lifting and crawling about in dangerous conditions.
474
I hope that there will be no diminution of the pension scheme, and that long-term solutions will be found to the problems of the fire service in London and nationally.
8.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on initiating this debate on the London fire service. At the risk of damaging his reputation, I also congratulate him on the measured and thoughtful way in which he presented the subject. He alluded to the fact that his style is in sharp contrast to that of his predecessor. He was perhaps not so amusing as his predecessor, but he was thoughtful nevertheless.
I understand the concerns of hon. Members and their constituents about the quality of fire services, and I am aware of the sensitivities that inevitably surround proposals that change existing arrangements for fire cover.
Given that the performance of the fire service has been raised in the debate, implicitly and, in some cases, explicitly, I feel that I should comment on the service's performance in the country as a whole, and specifically in London. As hon. Members have made clear, we have reason to be proud of the service. The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the response to the King's Cross disaster; that is a good example of the service's response to difficult situations and the way in which it gives of its best—often in fraught conditions—earning the deserved pride and support of both the House and the general public.
It is a privilege for me, holding the office that I hold, to work with a service that is so highly regarded by the public: a service which, as has been said, is courageous, which is on the whole well led and which achieves such high standards of performance. Those qualities were recognised in the 1995 report of the Audit Commission's study of the fire service, entitled "In the line of fire".
Several of my hon. Friends—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Twickenham—raised the subject of the 1947 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) reminded us that this year marked its golden anniversary. "In the line of fire" raised many issues connected with fire risk assessment and the way in which the London fire service should operate, and there are important lessons to be learnt from it. I shall say more about that shortly, but I think that we should first accept—as several hon. Members have said—that the conditions in which the fire services operate, and the type of work that they have to do, have changed considerably since 1947.
Let me make a simple point which I think illustrates that very well. As I was not born then, I shall take it on trust that, to those who wandered the streets of London or any other major city in 1947, traffic levels alone would demonstrate the stark difference between the risks that existed then and those that exist now. It is necessary only to travel around London at any time during the week to realise how difficult the position now is.

475
Having said that, I must point out that the 1947 Act—initiated under the Labour Government of the day—has, until recently, stood the test of time very well. It has been adapted, the fire services have operated within it and its basic principles were very good. We should not underestimate the Act; but that does not mean that it does not need to be modernised. We all recognise that a much more modern approach is needed to the way in which we assess risk and provide fire services.
Each year, the Audit Commission publishes a report on performance indicators for local authorities. In its latest report, for the year 1995–96—published in March—the commission said that the fire service was
"one of the most consistently high-performing services in local government. Most brigades achieved national standards for at least nine out of ten fire calls during all three years from 1993–94 to 1995–96, with the poorest performances significantly improving over this period. These improvements were achieved with increases in spending no higher than the level of inflation."
The financial difficulties that all hon. Members have mentioned applied at that time, particularly in London. The increase in standard spending assessment was 1.1 per cent. in 1994–95; 0.8 per cent. in 1995–96; 0.4 per cent. in 1996–97; and zero per cent. in 1997–98. Against a background of real-terms decline in resources, however, the service has continued to improve.
The Government are intent on building on the solid foundations that already exist. There will be more emphasis on partnership, and we intend to forge ever-closer links with fire service interests: trade unions, the local authorities concerned—single-purpose or otherwise—and chief fire officers. It is a cornerstone of our attitude to local government that we take a partnership approach, and respect and recognise the legitimate interests that are brought to bear on fire and, indeed, other services.
Let me say a little about the duties of fire authorities. The fire service is, of course, a local authority service. Statutory responsibility for providing fire services rests with the local fire authority—in London, the London fire and civil defence authority. Under the 1947 Act, it is for the fire authority to secure, among other things,
"the services for their area of such a fire brigade and such equipment as may he necessary to meet efficiently all normal requirements."
The fire authority sets the budget for its brigade, and it is up to it to ensure that that budget is set at such a level that its statutory responsibilities can be properly discharged.
Section 19 of the Act provides safeguards to ensure that the statutory responsibilities are met. Subsection (4) requires that a fire authority cannot reduce the number of fire stations, fire appliances and fire-fighting posts without the express consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend will grant his approval only if the following conditions are satisfied. First, the proposals must have been sufficiently widely publicised, in sufficient detail and with adequate time, to enable any interested party to make proper representations. Secondly, those representations must have been considered by the fire authority. Thirdly, Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services must have advised that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained if the proposals are ever to be implemented.
476
The existing agreed and published criteria make it clear that the Home Secretary will also take into account any representations that are made directly to him. I invite any hon. Member—indeed, anyone with an interest in the subject—to make representations in connection with section 19 applications: my right hon. Friend and I will give them all due consideration.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, we have now received a section 19 application from the London fire authority seeking approval for the closure of the fire stations at Shooters Hill and the Barbican, and new arrangements for the provision of fire cover on the River Thames. Until now, there have been no strong representations about the proposals for the Thames, although such representations may emerge; but I have already received written representations from hon. Members about Shooters Hill. I do not think that any representations have yet been received about the Barbican proposals. We shall consider representations and, as part of that process, seek technical advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services. I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will listen carefully to representations by hon. Members, interested organisations or individuals who wish to comment on the proposals.
I strongly assure the House that, having taken technical advice, we shall not approve any decision that we are advised would place the lives of Londoners at risk. It would be improper for me to give any indication of our likely reaction to the proposals. However, we would not agree to a proposal unless there were overwhelming grounds and we were satisfied that no lives would be put at risk.
On the issue of fire cover, the London section 19 proposals follow recommendations that were made in the authority's review of fire cover, which was published in December 1995, and subsequent follow-up work. All fire authorities regularly review fire risks in their area to ensure that the brigades' deployment of resources is updated in the light of changing circumstances. I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned Downham. That has been discussed, but I confirm that it forms no part of the section 19 application that is currently before us. As there is no proposal for that fire station at this time, it is not being considered.
Levels of fire cover are determined locally against nationally recommended standards that dictate the initial response to a fire in terms of weight and speed of attack. They rest on four main standards of service according to the risk category of the area, and they assume for each category that a predetermined number of fire-fighting appliances should attend within a certain time. The standards are not just recommended nationally: they are nationally agreed by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which is constituted under the Fire Services Act 1947 to represent fire service interests in advising the Home Secretary. I have chaired the two most recent meetings of that body and I know that it takes its responsibilities very seriously. The standards were extensively reviewed in 1985 by the advisory councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The standards have enabled all concerned to know where they stand on the minimum level of service that should be delivered.

477
The Audit Commission recommended in 1995 that there should be another review of the level of fire cover. The hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about that. The commission recognised that no fundamental change should be considered without careful research. I assure the House that we shall carry out such research on any proposals that are received under the process. A review of fire cover standards is being undertaken by a joint committee of the advisory councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. That research is under way, and I look forward to receiving the committee's report in due course.
I shall now deal with fire service budgets because in many ways they are the heart of the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members. Fire authorities have to set their budgets within the overall framework for local government spending, and that currently includes the criteria that are set for council tax capping. In London, the fire authority's revenue budget for 1997–98 is £267 million—the limit that is permitted under council tax capping policy and some £13 million or 5 per cent. above its standard spending assessment.
The Government are committed to ending crude and universal capping as soon as possible. In July, in collaboration with local government, we announced a review of local government finance which, among other things, will help to put in place the changes that are needed to deliver that commitment. In the meantime, capping will remain in place for 1998–99 and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will announce his provisional capping principles later this year. I assure the House that that announcement will be made in good time so that people will know where they stand.
Under current arrangements, it is open to authorities to set budgets that are higher than the provisional capping limit and to apply for redetermination of the cap if they think that they cannot set budgets that would allow them to meet their statutory obligations. There were examples of that happening under the previous Government.
The hon. Member for Twickenham spoke about capital expenditure. Obviously, we are watching that carefully. Eight private finance initiative projects are currently in existence through which the Government are helping local authorities. One such project is in London and it is getting, I think, £70,000 in consultancy support to see how it can benefit from the PFI proposals. Although no immediate relief is available in terms of the overall limits, we are considering carefully and constructively how the PFI can be taken forward and used in that context.
My hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North, for Hendon and for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the wider question of fire service funding, as did the hon. Member for Twickenham. I do not pretend that the problems of funding public services are easy, or that the funding problems that we inherited can be resolved overnight. The hon. Gentleman graciously accepted that—and I was pleased that, for once, no one suggested that the matter could have been resolved by a penny on income tax. He conceded that we had inherited a very difficult situation from our predecessors.
478
Although, in view of the constraints on its funding, I commend the fire service for maintaining its performance, I am well aware of the financial pressures confronting London and many other fire authorities. Those have been fully represented by myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in our discussions with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in representations that have been made to the Treasury on the SSA settlement.
I can say no more now, but it is fair to say that, in the past few weeks, several of my hon. Friends have represented those concerns to me, not in the Chamber but elsewhere. It is also fair to say that the observations that have been made tonight will be given full weight in our deliberations during the next few weeks, and that both Councillor Ritchie and the chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, have had the opportunity to raise those matters with me privately in a meeting, and I am well aware of their concerns.
The Government are committed to sticking to planned overall spending allocations for the first two years of our time in office, but that should not rule out adjustments of priorities within those totals, as hon. Members conceded. I am well aware of the 4.8 per cent. pay settlement that was announced a week ago, and obviously that will form part of our considerations.
We are examining spending throughout government in the comprehensive spending review, to discover what the current priorities are and where they may be shifted. That gives us a further opportunity to consider some of the problems and the fundamental issues and spending priorities in the fire service, looking at standards of fire service cover, fire safety, funding and the structure of the fire service. I hope that we make progress on that.
We are committed to a consultative approach, and I expect that consultation process to start from the end of November. The Home Office has worked closely with the Local Government Association and other fire service interests to assess future fire service spending pressures and to look at the scope for efficiency savings. This year's report of the local authorities' fire service expenditure forecasting group has drawn particular attention to the pressures in respect of pensions, training and fire safety. Each of those issues is being addressed differently.
The hon. Member for Twickenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North mentioned difficulties with pensions. Hon. Members will be aware that the previous Government commissioned a review of the fire service pension fund. I regularly asked them when they would publish it, and I had begun to believe that it had disappeared into the ether, but lo and behold, to their credit, when we entered office I found that it was advanced and that work was being done on it.
I intend to publish the findings of that review as soon as it is practicable to do so, but I must tell the House that there is no easy solution to the problem. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that he suspects that a cheque book may be needed somewhere along the line. There is no cheque book. Any solution must be a long-term solution: it cannot be implemented overnight. It will be many years before we can get the pension scheme into the type of balance that we would expect. There are many suggestions as to how that can be done and we will have to make a choice at some stage. None of those suggestions, however, lead us to the conclusion that the matter can be resolved speedily.

479
Decisions on the provisional local government settlement for England for 1998–99 will be announced within the month. There has been some wild talk—although not in the House tonight—and it has been reported in the media that difficulties will be experienced in London. I do not believe that at this time it is either necessary or appropriate for anybody, whether in the fire service or among the general public, to panic. As I said earlier, no decisions will be made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or me that will put lives in jeopardy.
The most sensible thing for all concerned is to await next month's announcement. When that announcement is made, I ask that people compare what we have
480
achieved with the achievements of the previous Government, which, as many people have said, is a fairly sorry record.
I can assure hon. Members that fire service funding pressures, including those for London, are noted and are being carefully considered. When the figures are announced next month, I will be happy to be judged on the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have noted those pressures and taken them into account. I hope that, when that happens, hon. Members will feel that we have done right by the fire service in England.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Radio Channels
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what meetings(a) he and (b) his officials have had with representatives of Children 2000 to discuss the possibility of a children's and schools' radio channel. [13369]

  Mr. Fisher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not held any meetings with representatives of Children 2000. I understand that when they met his officials to discuss the White Paper "The People's Lottery" they set out their plans for a children's and schools' radio channel.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to support the establishment of a children's and schools' radio channel; [13371]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that one of the available digital radio channels on one of the new multiplexes will be devoted to children's and schools' broadcasting. [13370]

  Mr. Fisher
  My right hon Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to direct the Radio Authority in exercising its statutory
  responsibility to award independent radio licenses in the UK.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the technology and planning permission issues have been addressed in respect of the transmission of the available 225kHz channel. [13368]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Radio Authority is presently considering the feasibility of using 225kHz for independent radio licensing. Any proposals put forward by the Radio Authority would need to be discussed with other countries by the Radiocommunications Agency under the International Telecommunication Union procedures which are designed to ensure that services can co-exist without causing interference with each other.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he plans to award a national radio franchise on the available 225kHz frequency. [13372]

  Mr. Fisher
  The award of national radio licences is a matter for the Radio Authority and not for Ministers. The Radio Authority is still considering the technical feasibility of using 225kHz for an independent national service.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs Tsar
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council what 258
  criteria will be applied to assess the efficiency of the work of the Drugs Tsar in respect of (a) prisons, (b) raves, (c) schools and (d) the use of illegal drugs by those who have MS. [13806]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The immediate priorities for Keith Hellawell—the recently appointed UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator—will be to review existing action against drug misuse, and then, as soon as possible, submit proposals to Ministers to develop the strategy to tackle drugs problems through effective enforcement, prevention, education and treatment. In drawing up his proposals, Mr. Hellawell will assess the effectiveness of the work currently being undertaken, which will help focus future efforts against drug misuse. The new strategy will contain objectives against which the Government's progress can be assessed.

TREASURY

  VAT (Historic Buildings)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to remove VAT from the repair and maintenance of historic buildings. [14182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]I have no plans to remove VAT from the repair and maintenance of historic buildings.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on(a) tax consultants and (b) other external tax advice in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13535]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]The Treasury has not sought external tax advice or employed tax consultants in order to reduce the Department's tax payments.

  Tax Harmonisation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on direct tax harmonisation in Europe. [13529]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]Direct taxation is a matter for Member States at national level. Proposals for action at the Community level must respect the principles of subsidiarity and unanimity.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussion took place at the most recent ECOFIN meeting about tax harmonisation; and if he will make a statement. [14087]

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the October ECOFIN agreement on a code of conduct for taxation levels in the European Union. [13530]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]I refer to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 3 November 1997,Official Report, column 16.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons he instructed the public sector pay review bodies not to allow their recommendations to be influenced by the headline rate of retail price inflation; and if he will make a statement. [13647]

  Mr. Darling
  Pay settlements next year must be affordable and will need to take account of our commitment to keep to the existing spending plans. We have asked the pay review bodies to give this priority over other considerations, including headline RPI where the current rate is high in relation to the 2½ per cent. inflation target. Keeping pay settlements under control will help Departments to maintain the delivery of services within their budgets.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the policy of the Government to make a declaration of intent regarding the European Single Currency on 21 November, and if he will make a statement. [13283]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  My statement to the House on 27 October set out clearly the Government's position on the European Single Currency.

  Tax and Benefits System (Review)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the conclusions of his Review of the Tax and Benefits System; and if he will make a statement.(13290]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The work of Martin Taylor's task force on tax and benefits will inform my right hon. Friend's next Budget Statement.

  Budget
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the date on which he intends to present the Budget in 1998. [13285]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I will present the Budget Statement in the Spring. I will make an announcement of the date in due course.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he plans to publish his consultative paper on the 1998 Budget; and if he will make a statement. [13289]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 884.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [13288]

  Mr. Darling
  It is intended to complete the Review in the middle of next year.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the present accounting procedures relating to Government loans made to support the introduction of higher education tuition fees in order to distinguish between Government spending and Government lending; and if he will make a statement. [13646]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]A response will be made to the Dearing Inquiry recommendation on the treatment of student loans in due course.

  Opencast Operations (Taxation)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for taxes on opencast coal mining, gravel extraction and limestone quarries in accordance with the polluter pays principle; and how these would be administered. [14282]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his July Budget, work is being carried out on the environmental costs attached to quarrying. The results will inform consideration of whether there is a case for tax or other measures to ensure that these costs are reflected in prices.

  Duty-free Sales
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure the continuation of duty free within the EU beyond 30 June 1999. [14288]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any extension of intra-EU duty-free sales beyond 30 June 1999 would require a fresh proposal from the European Commission and unanimity amongst all 15 Member States.

  Duty-free sales for travel outside the EU will continue after 30 June 1999.

PRIME MINISTER

  Market Sensitive Information
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions the Government have released market sensitive information to a selected individual or individuals and not the market as a whole. [13516]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government act only in line with long-established practice.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy on the release of market sensitive information. [13517]

  The Prime Minister
  To act in line with long-established practice.

  Seal Killing (Russia)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister when the letter to the Prime Minister from Mr. Robert Mouland of Folkestone, on the subject of seal pups, dated 30 September 1997, and faxed to the British embassy in Moscow, was shown to him. [14083]
  261
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]I have not seen the letter. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent a reply on 30 October 1997.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the killing of baby seals in his recent talks with President Yeltsin. [14081]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]No. The Russian Government are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about seal culling. The British embassy in Moscow are in regular contact with the relevant Russian authorities on this matter.

  Mr. Bill Gates
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had at his recent meeting with Mr. Bill Gates concerning(a) the computer millennium compliance problem and (b) other issues; and what was the outcome of these discussions. [14191]

  The Prime Minister
  I held a constructive meeting with Mr. Gates on 7 October at which a number of issues relating to information and communications technology were discussed, including the Government's proposals for the National Grid for Learning, which I launched that day. Mr. Gates briefly commented on the current status of the computer millennium compliance problem, action in respect of which was announced on 29 September by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  President Yeltsin
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had at his recent meetings with President Yeltsin concerning(a) the new Russian law on religion and (b) other issues; and what was the outcome of these discussions. [14192]

  The Prime Minister
  I did not discuss the law on freedom of conscience and religious association with President Yeltsin, but the British ambassador in Moscow has been assured by the Russian authorities that implementation of the law will not contravene Russia's international human rights obligations. My discussions in Moscow centred on political and economic reform, international trade issues, bilateral and foreign policy interests and the growing prospects for British business in Russia.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet members of the business community to discuss millennium projects. [14245]

  The Prime Minister
  I am planning to meet members of the business community to discuss the Millennium Experience early in the new year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many public appointments he has made since 1 May. [14246]

  The Prime Minister
  Ten.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what communication he has had with President Mandela since the Commonwealth conference relating to the Lockerbie bombing and the imposition of sanctions against Libya. [14413]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]I have had no communication with President Mandela since the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

  Australian Prime Minister (Visit)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what subjects were discussed with the Australian Prime Minister when he visited Downing street; and if he will make a statement. [13993]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]Subjects discussed included the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, climate change and a range of other bilateral and international issues.

  Indebted Countries
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister, further to his statement at the conclusion of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, what criteria will be applied to indebted countries to enable them to write off debts. [13996]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]We are willing to cancel aid debts for those countries who are committed to the internationally agreed development targets, are pursuing good government, are encouraging transparency and bearing down on corruption, and are applying economic policies which benefit the poor and encourage sustainable economic development.

  Royal Yacht
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that the royal yacht Britannia is made available for visits by residents in Thames boroughs during the vessel's last voyage along the Thames. [14214]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]HMY Britannia will be moored in the Pool of London from 13 to 21 November. During that time a large number of visitors will be invited to attend charitable and other events on board, and the fullest possible access is being arranged for local and national media. This approach, involving maximum use of the yacht for organised visits and events, has been adopted throughout the yacht's final tour of the British Isles; whilst she is still operational it is not safe or practicable to arrange unrestricted access for members of the public. HMY Britannia will sail under floodlight on the evening of 21 November, arriving in Portsmouth the following day to begin de-storing and other preparations for paying-off.

  Departmental Regulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers are responsible for better regulation in each Government Department. [13963]
  263
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has overall responsibility for better regulation matters. However, all Ministers have a responsibility for ensuring good regulatory practice and the avoidance of unnecessary red tape. In order to give this initiative additional focus each Government Department has named a lead Minister responsible for better regulation. These are:

  Department

  Brian Wilson MP, Minister of State

  Scottish Office

  The right hon. the Lord Gilbert, Minister of State

  Ministry of Defence

  Baroness Margaret Jay, Minister of State

  Department of Health

  The right hon. Tom Clarke MP, Minister of State

  Department for Media, Culture and Sport

  Andrew Ingram MP, Minister of State

  Northern Ireland Office

  Lord Donoughue, Minister of State

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Geoffrey Hoon MP, Parliamentary Secretary

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Peter Kilfoyle MP, Parliamentary Secretary

  The Office of Public Service

  John Denham MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of Social Security

  Angela Eagle MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Peter Hain MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Welsh Office

  George Howarth MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Home Office

  Dr. Kim Howells MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department for Education and Employment

  Glenda Jackson MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Barbara Roche MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of state

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Geoffrey Robinson Mp, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Her Majesty's Treasury

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Victims and Witnesses
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed care of victims and witnesses with the Director of Public Prosecutions. [12643]

  The Attorney-General
  I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions frequently to discuss matters of mutual interest. The CPS is, of course, involved in a number of major interagency initiatives to improve the service to victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system.

  Extradition
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent advice his Department has given on requests from other countries for extradition of people detained in British prisons. [12642]

  The Attorney-General
  It is not the practice to disclose such advice or to disclose whether or not advice has been given.

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to seek an extension of his power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal for review. [12639]

  The Attorney-General
  I am in discussion with colleagues about the best way to implement our manifesto commitment to extend my powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review where it appears to me that the sentence is unduly lenient.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Embassies
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the usual days and hours of manning United Kingdom embassies, including provision for answering telephone calls; and if he will make a statement. [13158]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The days and hours UK embassies open for business vary from country to country, according to local custom; details are available from Consular Division within this Department. All embassies operate a duty officer system to deal with emergency telephone calls out of office hours and this Department is always ready to answer queries about embassy services.

  European Treaties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the texts of any declaration, now appended to the treaty of Amsterdam not contained in the version of 16 June, stating for each(a) if it was agreed to by a Minister of the Crown at the preceding Inter-Governmental Conference and (b) what steps have been taken to publicise it. [13528]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]Four Declarations were agreed after the Amsterdam European Council and attached to the draft Final Act of the intergovernmental conference. These are numbers 3, 10, 21 and 45. Three declarations (numbers 14, 40 and 51) were agreed before Amsterdam and were attached to the Final Act subsequently. In addition, there were eight national declarations of which the conference took note. None was made by the UK.

  Ministers have agreed the text which was signed at Amsterdam on 2 October, including all declarations attached to the Final Act. All declarations are included in the final texts which have been deposited in the Library of the House and are set out in Cm 3780.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many former employees of GCHQ remain eligible for reinstatement as a result of the Government's decision to restore trade union rights at this establishment; and if he will make a statement; [14100]

  (2) how many of those eligible for reinstatement at GCHQ have applied; and how many of those applications were approved. [14101]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  About 130 staff left GCHQ as a result of the 1984 union ban, of whom 14 were actually dismissed. The remainder fell into various categories—for example, transfer to other Government Departments and early or normal retirement. I informed the House on 19 May of the procedures needed to restore normal trade union rights to the staff of GCHQ and a copy of this statement was sent to those who had been dismissed, together with an invitation to contact GCHQ's Head of Personnel to discuss re-joining on reinstatement terms. It is open to any former civil servant to apply for reinstatement, though there is no right to be reinstated, and applications are considered in terms of existing vacancies and the suitability of an applicant for a particular vacancy. Of the 14 who were dismissed, only seven were still below retirement age by the time initial discussions on the procedure for people to rejoin had taken place; discussions with these have reached varying stages. It is not known how many of the roughly 115 people who were not dismissed but who left GCHQ by other means are still below normal retirement age but GCHQ has received a total of five expressions of interest in reinstatement or transfer back to GCHQ and discussions have again reached varying stages.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many sub-bases of GCHQ are presently maintained in Northern Ireland. [13082]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is long-standing practice not to disclose the details of the operations of the security and intelligence services.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14382]

  Mr. Tony Lolyd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 216.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of persons missing in Sri Lanka his Department is dealing with; and if he will make a statement. [14099]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are currently dealing with two cases of missing persons in Sri Lanka.
  266
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many outstanding replies his Department is waiting for from the Sri Lanka Government with respect to requests for information on missing persons; and what is the average length of time taken for that Government to respond to letters on the subject of missing persons. [14098]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no replies outstanding from the Sri Lankan Government on requests for information on missing persons; on the basis of the two recent cases, the average length of time for the Sri Lankan Government to respond substantively to letters on missing persons is 10 months.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the citizens of Montserrat. [14297]

  Mr. Tony Lolyd
  The safety of Montserratians is paramount. Scientific advice indicates that the North of the island is relatively safe. We are committed to helping to sustain a viable community there for as long as it is safe to remain. If, however, Montserratians wish, and need help, we shall provide them with financial assistance for them to relocate elsewhere in the Caribbean or the UK.

  Antarctic
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the British Antarctic Survey on the depletion of the ozone layer over the southern polar regions. [14217]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) Meteorological and Ozone Monitoring Unit issues regular bulletins to interested scientists, Government officials and the media. These bulletins and further background information are available on the world wide web from the BAS home page (http://WWW.nbs.ac.uk).

  Indonesia
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement indicating the current state of negotiations on the proposed contract for the supply of Land Rovers to Indonesia. [13797]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Contractual negotiations are a matter for the company concerned.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court of Appeal
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the report of the Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) will be published; and when the Lord Chancellor expects to respond to it. [15143]

  Mr. Hoon
  The report of the Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) has been published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  267
  I am very grateful to the members of the review, and in particular to Sir Jeffery Bowman for chairing it. The Lord Chancellor is at present considering their conclusions and recommendations and intends to publish a detailed response early in the new year.

  Living Wills
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give people the statutory right to draw up an advance directive setting out their wishes with regard to future medical treatment should they become incapacitated in the future. [13909]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Law Commission report on mental incapacity published in 1995 includes recommendations relating to advance statements (sometimes referred to as advance directives). As I indicated in my written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) on 28 October 1997,Official Report, column 787, the Government do not consider that it would be appropriate to legislate on the basis of these recommendations without fresh public consultation. It is hoped that a consultation paper will be issued by the end of the year.

  Court Cases (Processing Times)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the time taken for courts to dispose of cases since May. [12644]

  Mr. Hoon
  The time taken from first listing to completion for indictable cases in magistrates courts is surveyed by the Department's time intervals survey. The June 1997 survey, the latest from which results are available, reports that the average time from first listing to completion for defendants in indictable cases was 58 days, and 21 and 29 days for defendants in summary non-motoring and summary motoring cases respectively.

  For defendants committed to the Crown Court for trial, information is collected on the time from committal to arraignment or start of trial. The average time for defendants over this interval since May 1997 has been as follows: May 1997, 11.79 weeks; June 1997, 11.95 weeks; July 1997, 12.49 weeks; August 1997, 11.74 weeks; and, September 1997, 11.74 weeks.

  In the county court and High Court, information on the time taken to deal with cases is recorded each March and September. Results for September 1997 are not yet available.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Haulage Companies
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met Commissioner Kinnock to discuss EU transport issues; and if he raised the problems United Kingdom lorry drivers and haulage companies face when transporting goods through other EU countries. [13035]
  268
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions maintains regular contact with Commissioner Kinnock on a wide range of issues. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport last met Commissioner Kinnock at the Transport Council on 9 October, where the weekend lorry ban imposed by some member states was one of the issues discussed. In addition, my noble Friend, the Minister for Roads, met Commissioner Kinnock on 6 October to discuss a range of road related issues—including freight transport in the EU.

  Housing Needs
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into ways in which (i) existing housing stock and (ii) new housing could meet changing household needs better over individual lifespans. [13011]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has commissioned three relevant studies:

  (i) a study has recently been completed on the conversion of local authority housing to meet the changing needs of tenants;

  (ii) research has just been commissioned on conversation, demolition and redevelopment, which will examine the potential of converting the existing housing stock of redeveloping sites to meet the increased demand for housing;

  (iii) a feasibility study to develop an economic model of the demand and need for social housing has also just been completed;

  (iv) a study has recently been completed into the cost implications of extending the building regulations to make new dwellings more accessible to disabled and elderly people.

  Since (ii) has just started and (i) and (iii) have recently been completed, the Department has not yet evaluated the outputs from these studies. Evaluation of study (iv) has been taken into account in reaching conclusions on extension of the building regulations, which will be announced shortly.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about recent negotiations in Bonn on a draft treaty on climate change. [13128]

  Angela Eagle
  The negotiating meeting in Bonn from 20 to 31 October made slow progress. The UK remains determined to work to ensure a successful outcome at Kyoto. To this end, the Deputy Prime Minister will be chairing an important meeting of developed countries in Tokyo on 8-9 November.

  Rail Companies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to increase the level of scrutiny of the performance of the newly privatised rail companies; and if he will make a statement. [13173]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers have given the Franchising Director new objectives, instructions and guidance under the Railways Act 1993. These require him to maintain a comprehensive and rigorous programme of performance monitoring, and to publish a quarterly bulletin describing the operating performance of franchise operators. Comprehensive monitoring is also carried out to secure compliance with franchise agreements and to operate performance incentive regimes. Passenger Transport Executives carry out additional monitoring of performance within their areas.

  The Government intend to strengthen the regulation of the railway in the interests of passengers and to establish a new Strategic Rail Authority. Decisions about what new powers are required, and whether further scrutiny would be appropriate in the future, will be taken within our review of transport policy which will lead to a White Paper next year.

  Blood Alcohol Limits
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the compliance of the proposal by the European Commission to harmonize and review blood alcohol limits with the obligation of subsidiarity; and if he will make a statement. [13693]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are actively considering the case for changing the UK blood alcohol limit. Our assessment of the European Commission proposals, including the relevance of subsidiarity, will be made in the light of what we conclude is appropriate for drivers in the UK.

  Municipal Public Transport
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to restore to local authorities the power to provide municipal public transport; and if he will make a statement. [13694]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no current plans to change the powers of local authorities in this respect but my Department is reviewing all aspects of the provision and regulation of local bus services as part of the development of an integrated transport policy.

  Dry Stone Walls
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information his Department has collated on the rate of destruction of dry stone walls. [14396]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest information on national losses of dry stone walls is derived from Countryside Survey 1990. This estimated that the total length of dry stone walls in Great Britain was 191,000 km in 1990, and that the overall length of dry stone walls had decreased by about 10 per cent. since 1984.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure the protection and good maintenance of dry stone walls in upland rural areas. [14398]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend on 9 July 1997,Official Report, column 495, which described the grant assistance available from the Government and powers available to local authorities and National Parks for the protection and maintenance of dry stone walls.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to determine the effect on the biodiversity of the countryside and upland areas of the dismantling of dry stone walls. [14397]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has not commissioned any such research. We are not aware of any directly relevant research on this subject, although the results of Countryside Survey 1990 showed that linear features in general were an important source of botanical diversity in the countryside.

  Rural England White Paper
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to review the long-term policy proposals set out in the 1995 Rural England White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [14298]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are committed to developing an integrated approach to tackling the problems of rural areas. Current policies and programmes are being reviewed as part of the Government's comprehensive spending reviews; notably the Countryside and Rural Policy spending review, conducted jointly by my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Sewage
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the level of untreated sewage discharge released by storms or flash floods. [14036]

  Angela Eagle
  Sewerage systems are designed to handle the expected normal sewage load through continuous, controlled and treated discharges. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) operate when this predetermined level is exceeded as a result of rainfall run-off entering the sewer. The sewage will be considerably diluted by the rainwater causing the overflow.
  271
  Except in areas of exceptionally high amenity value, these CSOs are not routinely monitored, so it is not possible to estimate the level of untreated sewage discharged in this way. However the design and construction of new and refurbished storm water overflows are controlled on a site specific basis by the Environment Agency on the principle that the frequency of discharge should be related to the dilution available and the uses made of the receiving water.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the level of sewage leakage for each of the water companies in the last year for which figures are available; [14035]

  (2) what plans the Government have to implement targets for a decrease in sewage leakage. [14037]

  Angela Eagle
  Leakage from sewers cannot be measured in any meaningful way and there are no plans at present to set sewage leakage targets. However, information on the condition and serviceability of assets was collected by the Director General at the last periodic review. Only 3 per cent. of critical sewers and 2 per cent. of non-critical sewers were in the worst condition grade. The Director General has asked companies to report on the state of their sewers in the asset inventory and serviceability return to Ofwat next summer, as part of the periodic review process.

  Car of Tomorrow Project
  Mr. MacGregor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the Twentieth report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in respect of the United Kingdom's funding for the European Commission's Car of Tomorrow project. [14423]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to working in partnership with industry to develop and promote less polluting vehicles, as demonstrated by yesterday's announcement by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, at the launch of the Foresight Vehicle LINK programme. The Government will continue to attach considerable importance to the potential contribution that European research and development can make to the development of cleaner vehicles as it discusses the make-up of the fifth framework programme with the European Commission.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunal
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to investigate the speed with which cases are processed through the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [14095]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department is working with the Presidents of the Tribunals to minimise delays in the procedures which are within their control. I understand that the West Midland Leasehold Valuation Tribunal typically issues decisions within a month of the hearing. My hon. Friend may, however, have in mind three cases relating to properties in Redditch which were heard in June. These are unusually important and sensitive cases 272
  on which the tribunal has found it necessary to deliberate at considerable length. It hopes to be able to issue its decisions later this month.

  County Structure Plans
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which draft county structure plans the Government office for each region has(a) responded to and (b) commented on since 1 May. [14076]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1 May 1977, formal interventions have been made by Government Offices on behalf of the Secretary of State in respect of the deposited County Durham structure plan (objection submitted by Government Office for the North East) and the Cornwall structure plan (withdrawal of direction not to adopt by the Government Office for the South West).

  In addition, comments have been submitted by Government Offices in respect of the reviews of the following structure plans:

  County

  Government Office for the West Midlands

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  Warwickshire

  Government Office for the Eastern Region

  Essex

  Government Office for the South East

  Oxfordshire

  More generally, Government Offices maintain ongoing discussions with all structure planning authorities in their areas.

  Lighting Systems
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to legislate for the control of light pollution from domestic and commercial security lighting systems and general floodlighting systems. [14013]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government believe that any problems caused by such lighting are best dealt with by raising public awareness and by providing guidance on how these problems might be avoided.

  My Department, in conjunction with the Countryside Commission, has recently published a good practice guide, "Lighting in the Countryside", which provides advice to local authorities, developers, professionals and members of the public on the effects of lighting and how best to minimise its intrusiveness. Much of the advice it contains is equally applicable to urban areas.

  Other wider concerns about light pollution are being considered by my officials. Any decisions on action will be taken once their work is complete.

  Bridge Strengthening
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has undertaken to assess how
  273
  many bridges, owned by local authorities, will need strengthening in order to meet the requirements under directive 85/3/EC. [14194]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department regularly monitors progress made by local authorities in implementing the programme of bridge assessment and strengthening, initiated in 1987.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review planning policy guidance to facilitate increased job creation in the rural economy. [14177]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's planning policy for rural areas is contained in Planning Policy Guidance note (PPG)7 which was revised in February 1997. This reaffirms that the guiding principle in the countryside should be that development should both benefit economic activity and maintain or enhance the environment.

  The revised PPG7 encourages business diversification and allows for greater discrimination in favour of re-use of rural buildings for business rather than for residential purposes.

  It also makes it clear that the range of industries which can be successfully located in rural areas, without causing unacceptable disturbance, is expanding. It advises local authorities to make provision for commercial development in their local plans, and gives greater encouragement to, and guidance on, development proposals for agricultural diversification.

  We have no plans to review PPG7.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many public appointments he has made since 1 May. [14244]

  Angela Eagle
  The Secretary of State has made the following appointments to non-departmental public bodies and nationalised industries sponsored by the Department since 1 May.

  Number

  NDPBs:

  Executive

  42

  Advisory

  30

  Tribunals

  59

  Nationalised Industries

  2

  Total

  133

  The Secretary of State also makes appointments to various small, mainly local, public bodies and other miscellaneous appointments. Details of these appointments are not held centrally.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list 274
  all (a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14381]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday, 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 216.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further legislative steps he plans in order to deal with radioactively contaminated land. [14360]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Act 1995 contained powers to establish regimes for both radioactively, and non-radioactively, contaminated land by secondary legislation. The Government are considering how best to apply the provisions of this Act, and we expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Planning
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to require the obtaining of planning permission for the erection of all telephone and radio masts. [14012]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants a general planning permission for certain telecommunications masts providing:the mast is erected by a telecommunications code system operator licensed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Telecommunications Act 1984;
  the mast does not exceed 15m in height;
  the mast is not erected in a National Park, area of outstanding natural beauty, conservation area, or the Broads; and
  the mast is not refused prior approval by the local planning authority within the period allowed under the Order. The authority must be given the opportunity to say whether they wish to approve, within 28 days, details of the mast's siting and appearance. The authority may refuse approval if they consider there to be a serious threat to amenity.

  A full application for planning permission is normally required for any mast which does not meet these criteria. There are no current plans to amend the regulations in this respect.

  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans she has to change the current guidance, in Policy Planning Guidance and the Town and Country Planning Acts, in respect of their presumption in favour of development. [14358]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires a planning application to be determined in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As explained in PPG1, this establishes a presumption in favour of proposals that conform to the prevailing development plan, rather than a general presumption in favour of development. The Government have no plans to change this "plan-led" system. Any changes to Planning Policy Guidance or Minerals Planning Guidance will be announced in the normal way.
  275
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to include crime statistics as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications relating to change of use. [14176]

  Mr. Raynsford
  DoE Circular 5/94, "Planning Out Crime", advises that crime prevention is capable of being a material consideration when planning applications are considered. As with other material considerations, the weight that is given to it will depend on the individual circumstances of the case. Crime statistics may be useful in making this assessment.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to amend the Planning Regulations so that public houses and hot food takeaway premises do not fall within the same use class; and if he will make a statement. [14014]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Use Classes Order 1987 groups together various types of land use because, in planning terms, they have a similar impact on a neighbourhood. As public houses and hot food takeaway premises tend to raise the same land use issues, they are both included within Use Class A3, the Food and Drink Class. There are no plans to amend this class, although we keep the arrangements under review.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to remove permitted development rights and same category use rights from the privatised utilities and public bodies for buildings or land which formerly had the benefit of Crown immunity, but have subsequently ceased to be used in full or part for the original purpose, and to require the submission of planning applications for any changes of use which have been implemented or planned since privatisation. [14032]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to remove permitted development rights or same Use Class rights from privatised utilities or public bodies. Last year my Department commissioned research to establish the extent to which statutory undertakers rely on permitted development rights and to consider whether any changes are needed. The research project is now complete and we are considering the findings.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change the licensing regulations for older motorists. [14203]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no plans at present to change the present arrangements. Those aged 70 and over may renew their driving licences for periods of up to three years subject to satisfying the health requirements. All drivers are under a statutory obligation to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of any relevant disability from which they suffer.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the road schemes by each local authority which make up the existing commitments in the local transport 276
  settlement 1997–98, indicating for each (a) the total costs and (b) whether contracts have been entered into between local authorities and construction firms. [14195]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The schemes which are being supported in 1997–98 are listed in the table. Information on contracts could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Authority

  School name

  Total cost £000

  Bexley

  A201 Erith-Thamesmead Spine Road (phase IV)

  33,339

  Enfield

  A110 Nags Head Road/High Street Ponders End

  4,857

  Greenwich

  A206 Woolwich Road/improvements

  24,159

  Harrow

  A409 Wealdstone bypass

  16,517

  Harrow

  A409 Sheepcote Road widening for two-way traffic

  2,905

  Hillingdon

  A402 Uxbridge Town Centre improvements

  2,281

  Hounslow

  A315 Hounslow Town Centre-Urban Relief Road

  10,885

  Kensington and Chelsea

  A404 Harrow Road Junction/Ladbroke Grove Canal Bridge

  9,171

  Kingston

  A240 North-South Strategy-A240 Corridor improvements

  4,494

  Newham

  A 117 East Ham Town Centre Relief Road/pedestrianisation

  13,864

  Newham

  A 11 Stratford Gyratory modifications

  3,756

  Westminster

  A404 Harrow Road/Ladbroke Grove widening

  4,398

  Manchester

  A601 Intermediate Ring Road stage 2

  44,072

  Oldham

  A62 A62/A627 Oldham Way improvements

  5,850

  Salford

  A506 Trafford Road (The Quays-White City)

  20,782

  Trafford

  A56 City Link/White City interchange

  36,721

  Trafford

  A506 Trafford Road improvements

  23,952

  Knowsley

  A530 Link Road M57 to A562

  47,334

  Sefton

  A59 Aintree Park Lane improvements

  3,300

  Wirral

  A502 Birkenhead Freeport route

  4,687

  Barnsley

  A619 Dearne Towns link road

  39,510

  Doncaster

  A630 Wheatley Hall road

  8,608

  Sheffield

  A610 Outer Ring road (Darnall) stages II, Ill & IV

  20,669

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  A608 West Central route

  20,996

  Birmingham

  A512 Lichfield Road improvements phase 1

  19,004

  Birmingham

  A47 Heartlands Spine Road Phase 3

  26,004

  Birmingham

  A47 Heartlands Spine road phase 2

  58,220

  Birmingham

  A34/A435 South Birmingham improvements phase 1

  3,548

  Coventry

  A444 North-South road phase 1

  22,586

  Coventry

  A444 North-South road phase 2

  22,270

  Dudley

  A461 Dudley Southern bypass

  55,000

  Sandwell

  A403 Churchbridge improvements Sandwell

  3,840

  Solihull

  A45 West Midlands Renaissance Area improvements

  18,528

  Wolverhampton

  A412 Wednesfield Bypass and Industrial Access

  25,325

  Leeds

  Leeds inner ring road stages 6 and 7

  78,821

  Leeds

  Leeds City Centre Loop phase 3

  8,079

  Wakefield

  A628 Hemsworth bypass

  10,161

  Redcar and Cleveland

  A174 Skelton and Brotton bypass

  12,260

  Stockton on Tees

  A104 Portrack land dualling

  7,791

  Kingston upon Hull

  A103 Ennerdale link road

  30,487

  North East Lincolnshire

  A16 Grimsby Peakes parkway

  25,048

  York

  B1228 Peasholme Green Bridge

  4,728

  Peterborough

  A415 Werrington to Glinton phase 2

  9,578

  Buckinghamshire

  A413 Wendover bypass

  13,971

  Buckinghamshire

  A421 Tingewick bypass

  12,802

  Cheshire

  A533 Davenham bypass

  18,150

  Cheshire

  A534 Wheelock bypass

  11,548

  Cheshire

  Chester park and ride phase 2

  6,847

  Cornwall

  A39 Trispen bypass and A30 link

  6,050

  Cumbria

  A595 Dalton in Furness to Askam in Furness improvements

  4,618

  277

  Authority

  School name

  Total cost £000

  Derbyshire

  A6 London road diversion

  14,595

  Dorset

  A37 improvements

  8,869

  East Sussex

  A22 New route (Dittons to seaside)Eastbourne

  27,866

  Gloucestershire

  A430 Gloucester south west bypass

  22,290

  Hampshire

  A331 Blackwater valley route (centre section)

  39,338

  Hampshire

  A325 Woolmer link road

  2,803

  Hertfordshire

  Al21 Cheshunt link road

  16,297

  Kent

  A299 Thanet way dualling Sections 1-7A)

  184,605

  Kent

  A206 South Thames-side development route stage 1

  20,850

  Kent

  A228 Hale street bypass

  10,400

  Kent

  A256 Whitfield to Eastry/Whitfield bypass

  37,700

  Kent

  A28 A20 Barracks link Ashford

  3,950

  Kent

  A226 South Thames side development route stage 4

  18,354

  Kent

  A289 Wainscott northern bypass

  58,071

  Lancashire

  A6 South Ribble: M65 Interface improvements

  12,727

  Lincolnshire

  A57 Lincoln: Ropewalk to Carholme road. improvements

  11,090

  Lincolnshire

  A15/1 Market Deeping bypass

  10,561

  Northamptonshire

  A605 Warmington bypass and Tansor improvements

  4,810

  Northumberland

  A189 North Seaton duplication stage I

  10,645

  Nottinghamshire

  A609 Awsworth and Cossall bypass

  4,821

  Nottinghamshire

  A611 Mansfield eastern outer ring road (phase 2)

  3,007

  Nottinghamshire

  A608 M1 to A611 improvement Annesley

  5,099

  Oxfordshire

  B403 improvements between A421 Tingewick and A43

  6,073

  Somerset

  A39 Wells Relief road

  14,163

  Somerset

  A37 Yeovil to Dorset boundary phase 1

  5,813

  Staffordshire

  A50 Uttoxeter town centre bypass phases I and II

  17,224

  Staffordshire

  A527 Tunstall western bypass phases I and II

  2,788

  Surrey

  A331 Blackwater valley route (Aldershot road-Lynchford road)

  78,586

  West Sussex

  A230 Burgess Hill link road

  6,032

  Worcestershire

  A44 Broadway bypass

  8,405

  Worcestershire

  A422 Worcester Western bypass and link roads

  13,770

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) new and (b) existing rural packages which have been submitted by local authorities in their Transport Policies and Programmes for 1998–99 and the amount bid for in each. [14193]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The packages which are targeted substantially on rural areas are:

  Local authority

  Package

  1998–99 bid £000s

  (a) New

  Kent CC

  Romney Marsh

  375

  Surrey CC

  STAR2

  502

  West Sussex CC

  SCRIPT Telematics Rural

  240

  Devon CC

  Rural

  220

  Cumbria CC

  Lake District

  640

  North Yorkshire CC

  North York Moors

  193

  North Yorkshire CC

  Yorkshire Dales

  203

  Suffolk CC

  Rural

  400

  (b) Existing

  East Sussex CC

  Ashdown Forest

  400

  278

  Local authority

  Package

  1998–99 bid £000s

  Hampshire CC

  New Forest

  500

  Cornwall CC

  Falmouth

  907

  Devon CC

  Dartmoor

  329

  Derbyshire CC

  Hope/Derwent

  322

  Air Safety
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further steps will be taken to review flight paths and container safety standards in respect of the transport of mixed oxide fuel by air. [14285]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am satisfied with current operational procedures which require that such flights should be made over water as far as possible, avoiding large conurbations.

  Container safety standards for the transport of radioactive material are kept under continuous review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and made mandatory for air transport when incorporated into the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air. The UK will continue to contribute to future regulatory developments through both the IAEA and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to relax the current controls on local authorities re-investing their non-housing capital receipts. [14027]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Act 1997, which has just come into force, will enable Ministers to take account of most receipts set aside by local authorities for debt repayment in determining amounts of supplementary credit approvals. The measure will allow the additional resources we have made available under our housing capital receipts initiative to be distributed to local authorities taking account of historically generated housing capital receipts, as well as need. The Government's immediate priority is for a housing initiative to get extra resources into tackling the backlog of housing need. We have no plans at present for a similar initiative for other services.

  National Parks and Marine Reserves
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to establish new(a) national parks and (b) marine nature reserves; and if he will make a statement. [13684]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]: The designation of new National Parks in England is the responsibility of the Countryside Commission, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. The Countryside Commission proposes to bring together the results of current work on landscape designated areas next spring. Its report to Ministers will include advice on whether National Park status might be effective and appropriate for any areas where the landscape may be considered in need of greater protection.
  279
  There are no plans to establish any new Marine Nature Reserves in England.

  The designation of National Parks and Marine Nature Reserves in Wales is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that the environmental protection measures in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 are adhered to. [14554]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London and Continental Railways are contractually obliged to the Government to comply with the Environmental Minimum Requirements provided for under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link development agreement. These include a range of planning, environmental and heritage memoranda and agreements with local authorities and statutory environmental bodies, and the various undertakings and assurances given during the passage of the CTRL Act.

  Footpaths and Byways
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of designated footpaths and byways exist in England and Wales. [14613]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1994, the last survey of rights of way in England indicated that there were 82,025 miles of footpaths and 1,864 miles of byways open to all traffic recorded under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A similar survey in Wales carried out in 1994–95 indicated that there were 19,441 miles of footpaths and 404 miles of byways.

  In addition, there were also estimated to be 18,021 miles of bridleways in England and 3,440 miles in Wales, and 3,107 miles of roads used as public paths in England and 1,485 miles in Wales.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to assist the re-establishment of ancient bridleways. [14179]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities are responsible for recording bridleways and ensuring that they are open and free from obstructions. They also have powers to create bridleways by agreement or order. With our statutory advisers, the Countryside Commission, we shall encourage authorities to make good use of their powers. As part of the Government's comprehensive spending review, we shall be considering the balance of expenditure between different recreational activities.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will receive deputations from local authorities in England to discuss this year's provisional local authority grant settlement. [14617]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am keen to ensure that we hear the views of those authorities that have constructive points to make on the settlement, whether in writing, face to face or otherwise. I am currently looking into the possibility 280
  of using local video-conferencing facilities to meet with local authorities. This could save some local authority delegations from having to incur the expense and time that would be involved in travelling to London.

  BSE
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines his Department issues to those handling tissue from the nervous system of cows infected with BSE; and if he will make a statement. [13805]

  Angela Eagle
  Occupational exposure to the agent BSE in nervous tissue may occur during work in research laboratories, post mortem rooms and during the slaughter and disposal of infected cattle. In view of the uncertainty about the risks from BSE, prudent and precautionary worker safety measures have been recommended since 1989. Guidance has been prepared on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).

  Guidance from ACDP on the health and safety requirements for laboratory and post mortem workers was published in 1994. It recommends the use of special containment conditions, safety equipment and decontamination measures for all work with BSE. General ACDP guidance for other occupational groups was published in August 1996. It recommends the maintenance of high standards of occupational hygiene when working with cattle and new methods of working to avoid or minimise exposure to tissues of cattle that may carry the agent of BSE infectivity. Copies have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Recent evidence on the link between BSE and the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (nvCJD) in humans means that BSE must now be considered a biological agent (human pathogen) within the meaning of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1994. ACDP have advised that to date there is no evidence of occupational transmission of either BSE or CJD and that none of the cases of nvCJD has any obvious link with occupational exposure to BSE. ACDP consider that the existing published guidance on BSE continues to provide adequate control. The 1994 guidance is being revised and updated in any event and will be published early in 1998.

  Passenger Railway Services
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Franchising Director plans to publish his criteria for the appraisal of passenger railway services. [14616]

  Dr. Strang
  The Franchising Director has today published "Appraisal of Support for Passenger Rail Services—Planning Criteria: An Interim Guide", which sets out the basis on which he intends to appraise the costs and benefits of new passenger rail investment and changes in service levels. I have approved these criteria on an interim basis, and instructed the Franchising Director to
  281
  keep them under review, revising the criteria as necessary in the light of the wider review of economic appraisal being undertaken as part of the Government's integrated transport strategy. Copies of the criteria have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Genetically Modified Maize
  Mr. Dewson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy in the European Council to support those member states of the European Community which have banned genetically modified maize. [14558]

  Angela Eagle
  At the Article 21 Committee on 5 November, Austria requested that the vote on the Commission proposal to require Austria and Luxembourg to repeal their bans on GM maize be postponed. The United Kingdom delegation, among others, supported the Austrian request, and consideration of the Commission's proposal has been deferred until the next meeting of the Article 21 Committee, in about two months time. In the meantime it is expected that the Commission will endeavour to find compromise wording for the proposal and the Government will consider its position in the light of these developments.

  Franchising Director
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to issue new objectives, instructions and guidance to the Rail Franchising Director. [14614]

  Dr Strang
  I have today written to the Franchising Director, enclosing a new set of Objectives, Instructions and Guidance, issued to him under section 5 of the Railways Act 1993. Copies of my letter and of the Objectives, Instructions and Guidance have been laid before the House and also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Coastguard
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on coastguard provision in the Solent/Spithead area. [14684]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Coastguard agency, Mr. C. J. Harris, to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Letter from Mr. C. J. Harris to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 6 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Coastguard provision in the Solent/Spithead area.
  The Coastguard District of Solent is part of the Southern Coastguard Search and Rescue Region, and comprises a Maritime Rescue Sub Centre at Lee-on-Solent along with Coastguard Sector Managers at Portsmouth, South Downs (Littlehampton), Southampton and the Isle of Wight who are responsible for Auxiliary Coastguard Response Teams trained in cliff and mud rescue and coastal search techniques. These teams are located at Havant, Hayling Island, Portsmouth, Selsey, Birling Gap, Brighton, Littlehampton, Newhaven, Shoreham, Hillhead, Lymington, Southampton, Bembridge, Needles, Newport, Ryde and Ventnor, plus two Coastguard patrol boats (based at Hayling Island and Southampton). Coastguard facilities within the Solent District are
  282
  completed by a contract rescue helicopter based at Lee-on-Solent and other search and rescue organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Solent Sea Rescue Organisation.

  Rail Regulation
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to improve the regulation of the rail industry. [14615]

  Dr. Strang
  I have today signed a voluntary Concordat with the independent Rail Regulator which provides a framework for better regulation of the railways. The Concordat includes a statement of the Government's objectives for the rail industry, the Rail Regulator's aims and objectives, and a framework for communication between Ministers, the Franchising Director and the Rail Regulator. Copies of the Concordat have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Service
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is to be the next Chief Inspector of Fire Services. [15140]

  Mr. Straw
  Mr. Graham Meldrum CBE, the Chief Fire Officer of the West Midlands Fire Service, will become Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Fire Services in succession to Sir Bryan Collins OBE, who retires on 31 December.

  Surveillance Systems
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to alter the draft code of practice on intrusive surveillance to(a) ensure equal rights for tenants as for property owners and (b) include a definition of urgency; and if he will make a statement. [13710]

  Mr. Michael
  We have received more than 60 responses to the public consultation exercise on the draft code of practice. Both of the issues raised by the right hon. Member were raised by respondees and are receiving careful consideration, along with other matters raised during the consultation process. We will table a revised draft when that consideration has been completed.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to record the number of animals(a) bred and (b) killed purely for body parts and tissue use in UK laboratories; and if he will make a statement; [13800]

  (2) what estimates he has made of the number of animals which have been (a) bred and (b) killed in UK laboratories purely for body parts and tissue use in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [13799]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 regulates the use of living animals in scientific procedures.
  283
  Killing animals by humane methods does not necessarily require licence authority under the Act and does not always need to be carried out in establishments designated under sections 6 or 7 of the 1986 Act. The Home Office cannot therefore collate, or even estimate, the number of animals bred and killed purely for body parts or tissue.

  Fundamental changes to the Act would be needed if statistics of this nature were to be collected and there are no plans to make any such changes.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department plans to publish the revised(a) "Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986" and (b) "Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures". [13643]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]Work has already commenced on updating the "Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986". The revisions will, in part, depend upon exactly how we implement a number of the planned changes to the operation of the Act, including those recommended by the Animal Procedures Committee in its interim report on the review of the Act. A firm publication date cannot therefore be given at this stage.

  Work on the "Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures" will follow the revision of the Guidance. This will allow us to ensure that any changes made take full account of changes being made in Europe. The Council of Europe is currently setting up working groups to review Appendix A of the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes, ETS 123. This Appendix sets out guidelines on the care and accommodation of laboratory animals.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department has spent on funding the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate in each of the last five years; what is the projected expenditure for each of the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [13638]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]In the last five years,(a) the pay budget and (b) the travel and subsistence budget for the Inspectorate have been as follows:

  (a)£

  (b)£

  1993–94

  1,037,000

  140,000

  1994–95

  1,031,000

  102,000

  1995–96

  991,000

  112,000

  1996–97

  1,047,000

  129,000

  1997–98

  1,033,000

  135,000

  Budgets for 1998–99 and for 1999–2000 have not yet been finalised, but an increase to cover two or three new inspectors has been agreed.

  Accommodation and other running costs are funded jointly with the administrative unit which operates the licensing system. They cannot easily be separated.
  284
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much has been spent by his Department on work to find alternatives to the use of animals in scientific procedures in each of the last five years; what is the projected expenditure for each of the next two years; and if he will make a statement; [13677]

  (2) what assessment he has made of section 62 of the report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1996; and if he will make a statement. [[13681]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]During the past five years, the budget made available to the Animal Procedures Committee to sponsor research to reduce, refine or replace animal experimentation has been as follows:

  1993–94: £308,000

  1994–95: £273,000

  1995–96: £253,000

  1996–97: £242,000

  1997–98: £182,000.

  Paragraph 62 of the Committee's annual report repeats the Committee's concern about the reduction in the 1996–97 budget and says that the Committee was
  "extremely annoyed to find that the budget for 1997–98 would be reduced by another £60,000".

  Both these reductions were made under the previous Government.

  The budgets for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 have not yet been finalised, but I hope to see an increase.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) inspectors and (b) administrative staff are employed (i) full time and (ii) part time as part of the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. [13637]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]Since June, three new Inspectors have been appointed to restore the complement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to 18 full-time inspectors and one full-time personal secretary. We have secured additional funding from next year for another two or three inspectors.

  In addition, there are 11 full-time and six part-time administrative staff in a separate unit which operates the licensing system.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the ban on the use of animals in the testing and development of weapons will come into force; and if he will make a statement. [13676]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]No animals are being used to develop weapons. Animals can be used, however, to test and develop means of protecting United Kingdom service men and women against terrorist and battlefield weapons and to improve treatments. I have no plans, at this time, to ban such use.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce compulsory training programmes for scientists and technicians killing animals by methods outlined in Schedule 1 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [13640]
  285
  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]We have accepted a recommendation made by the Animal Procedures Committee in its interim report on the review of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that all those killing animals by Schedule 1 methods should be trained and competent to do so.

  We will be consulting the Institute of Biology, the Universities Group for the Accreditation of Training and other relevant bodies to develop a suitable training scheme. We then propose to add conditions to all Certificates of Designation to require establishments to maintain lists of all those who have been trained and are competent to kill animals by specified Schedule 1 methods.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce compulsory training programme for certificate holders in respect of the specific responsibilities they hold under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; [13639]

  (2) on what date he plans to meet certificate holders under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to discuss specific problems and best practice relating to the Act. [13641]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]In their interim report on the review of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Committee recommended that"training be developed to assist Certificate holders in carrying out the specific responsibilities they hold under the 1986 Act"
  and that
  "the Home Office arrange a meeting of certificate holders to consider specific problems and best practices".

  We have accepted these recommendations.

  The Animal Procedures Committee had previously recommended that all new applicants for Certificates of Designation should attend module 1 of an accredited training programme. This has already been implemented. We will now be consulting with the Institute of Biology, the Universities Group for the Accreditation of Training and other relevant bodies to develop additional training for Certificate holders.

  No date has yet been set for a meeting of Certificate holders, but informal discussions have already been held with several Certificate holders at both Ministerial and official level.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department plans to publish the procedures by which infringements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are handled; and if he will make a statement. [13642]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]These have already been published in paragraphs 135 to 140 and in Appendix D to the 1986 annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to ban the LD50 test; and if he will make a statement. [13675]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]Regulators, both national and international, still require that LD50 tests be carried out in certain circumstances to ensure that products are safe to the 286
  consumer and to those involved in their manufacture and transport. A unilateral ban on the LD50 test would, at this stage, result in these tests being carried out in other countries, many of which have less rigorous controls on animal tests and less regard for animal welfare. Even if it could be maintained under current legislation, such a ban would also seriously disadvantage United Kingdom industry.

  The Government are instead pressing regulators to dispense with the need for the LD50 test.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Animal Procedures Committee who have held a licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986(a) during the last six years and (b) ever. [13680]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]Section 19(3) of the Act requires that, other than the Chairman, at least half of the members of the Animal Procedures Committee shall"neither hold nor within the previous six years have held any licence"
  under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or its predecessor, the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.

  The members of the Committee who currently hold or have held within the past six years either a project or personal licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 are as follows:

  Professor Ronald Anderson

  Professor Barry Bridges

  Professor Fiona Broughton Popkin

  Professor Paul Flecknell

  Mr. John Gregory

  Professor Susan Iversen

  Professor Michael Spyer.

  In addition, Mrs. Judy MacArthur Clark and Dr. Anthony Suckling have held licences under the Act, but not during the last six years.

  Two more members, Dr. Southee and Dr. Purchase, held licences before 1987 under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.

  All members of the Committee are appointed because of their commitment to animal welfare. We intend to make a number of new appointments shortly and to increase the number of members with animal welfare expertise.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make racial harassment and violence a specific offence; and if he will make a statement. [14437]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government intend to introduce new offences of racial harassment and violence in the Crime and Disorder Bill. These measures will send out a strong message to society that such crime is unacceptable and will be dealt with seriously by the courts. A consultation document setting out in detail the Government's proposals was issued on 2 October. We are now considering the responses.

  Strip Search Review
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 1997,Official Report, column 98, what is the target date for completion of the review of strip searching procedures. [13087]

  Ms Quin
  We expect the review to have been completed by the end of January 1998.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidance to the police, Crown Prosecution Service and other relevant professional groups on dealing with cases of alleged crimes against people with learning difficulties; and if he will make a statement. [13736]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]The Government are concerned about the plight of vulnerable witnesses, including those with learning difficulties, and believe that more needs to be done.

  That is why on 13 June I announced an urgent, wide-ranging review of the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated by the criminal justice system with the aim of identifying measures to protect those likely to be subject to intimidation and to assist them and other adult vulnerable witnesses give their best evidence in court. This is being taken forward by an interdepartmental working group which includes representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. The review will include consideration of the need to issue guidance to the police and others involved in the criminal justice system who may deal with cases of alleged crime against people with learning difficulties.

  Work undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service, headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and under the superintendence of the Attorney-General, with the police has considered ways to improve information which assists with the early identification of vulnerable witnesses or victims or those who may have special requirements.

  A new edition of the Manual of Guidance for the preparation of police files was published in October 1997. It advises officers on the information they should report to prosecutors concerning the special needs of certain witnesses and the additional measures required when they attend court.

  Previous guidance relating to mentally vulnerable witnesses issued to Crown Prosecution Service staff in January 1995 draws attention to the fact that victims are often selected by offenders because of their vulnerability. This would be a public interest factor in favour of prosecution. The guidance also warns against assumptions being made about the capabilities of mentally vulnerable witnesses and their ability to give a reliable and complete account of events and urges decisions to be based on the known abilities of individuals.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Environmental Audit Committee
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Council (1) when she plans to establish the Commons Environmental Audit Committee; [14266]

  (2) when she plans to move the establishment of the Environmental Audit Committee. [12720]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I will be tabling the motion to establish the Environmental Audit Committee very soon.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many exclusion orders remain in force; what number involve(a) republicans and (b) loyalists; and if she will make a statement on her policy regarding their use. [13019]

  Mr. Ingram
  No exclusion orders have been renewed or issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State since May, and none for which she is responsible is currently in force.

  Preparatory Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils attend preparatory departments at voluntary grammar schools; if these pupils are entitled to bus passes; what is the cost of these pupils to public funds; what are the estimated staff redundancy costs of the closure of these preparatory schools; what is the estimated additional cost to public funds of the transfer of these pupils to maintained and controlled primary schools; and if she will make a statement about the future of voluntary preparatory schools. [13648]

  Mr. Worthington
  At October 1996, enrolments in the preparatory departments of voluntary grammar schools were 2,193. Pupils in these preparatory departments are not eligible for transport assistance. In 1996–97 grant aid to the preparatory departments of voluntary grammar schools totalled £1,307,380. The Department of Education is presently seeking the views of relevant schools on the implications of reducing or terminating public funding to them. Until those consultations have been concluded it is not possible to forecast possible redundancy costs or the additional costs, if any, resulting from preparatory department pupils transferring to primary schools.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the suppliers to her Department who are owed outstanding amounts, indicating the amounts and the due date on which the account should have been settled. [13539]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]All Departments are required to pay all their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is later, where no such terms exist. Such detailed information on payment performance for the current financial year could
  289
  be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Treasury will shortly be publishing a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average time taken by her Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13955]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding reply 4 November 1997]:I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 3 November 1997, Official Report, column 5.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the expenditure by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if she will make a statement. [13271]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]The information requested in respect of the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments, their agencies and NDPBs for the years 1995–96,1996–97 and 1997–98 is as follows:

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  1997–98 £

  Department

  (i) Tax consultants

  —

  6,514

  13,275

  (ii) Other

  —

  —

  —

  Agencies

  (i) Tax consultants

  —

  —

  —

  (ii) Other

  —

  —

  —

  NDPBs

  (i) Tax consultants

  6,764

  4,365

  7,016

  (ii) Other

  11,298

  20,128

  21,619

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many RUC barracks are maintained in Northern Ireland; and if she will list those currently being planned, built, replaced, renovated, reinforced, upgraded or extended or to be closed. [13057]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC estate currently consists of 164 establishments. There is an on-going programme of maintenance, including work to comply with health and safety requirements.

  Future requirements are currently being assessed against policing needs and availability of funding.

  Border Crossings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the blocked border crossings in Northern Ireland in September 1994 and 290
  September 1997, indicating anticipated changes in the next six months providing there is no major change in the overall security context. [13060]

  Mr. Ingram
  At the beginning of September 1994,104 border crossing points were subject to closure orders which were all rescinded later that month and in October 1994 by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. A list has been attached.

  By September 1997 all were re-opened apart from three. Work is under way at BCP 171 Aghalane Bridge, Co. Fermanah, and is due to be completed by November 1998. There are currently no plans to re-open BCP 92 Annaghroe Bridge, Co. Tyrone or BCP 93 Knockaginny Bridge, Co. Tyrone.

  Border Crossing points subject to closure orders in early September 1994

  BCP 6 Newtown Road, Co. Armagh;

  BCP 71 The Plough Crossing, off Crossbane Road, near Middletown, Co. Armagh;

  BCP 75 Wilson's Crossing, off Rowan Road, near Middletown, Co. Armagh;

  BCP 83 Skerrie's Crossing, Rathtrillick Road, near Middletown, Co. Armagh;

  BCP 90 Annagola Bridge, off the Monaghan Road, Co. Armagh;

  BCP 91 Cortynan Road, Co. Armagh;

  BCP 92 Annaghroe Bridge, Annaghroe Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 93 Knockaginny Bridge, Knockaginny Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 94 Burns' Bridge, off the Derrycourtney Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 96 Ravellea Bridge, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 98 County Bridge, off the Favour Royal Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 101 Off the Favour Royal Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 102 Favour Royal Forest, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 105 Off the Altadaven Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 106 Off the Altadaven Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 107 Cullamore, off the Altadaven Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 108 Old Monaghan Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 109 Mullynavale Road in the townland of Mullynavale, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 110 Mullaghfad Road in the townland of Mullaghfad, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 111 In the townland of Corragunt, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 113 Corragunt Bridge in the townland of Corragunt, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 114 Derryvolan Road, Derryvolan. Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 115 Tattymore, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 116 Tattymore, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 117 Rellan, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 120 Clogh Road in the townland of Cloghmore, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 122 Off the Clogh Road in the townland of Cloghmore, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 123 North west of Rathkeevan Lough in the townland of Rathkeevan, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 124 Mullinahinch Road, Mullinahinch, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 125 Off the Lisroon Road in the townland of Annachullion Glebe, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 127 Benson's Bridge in the townland of Shannock Green, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 128 Priest's Bridge in the townland of Shannock Green, Co. Fermanagh;

  291

  BCP 129 Lacky Bridge in the townland of Lacky, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 136 Dummy's Lough, off Magheraveely Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 137 Clonatty Bridge, Clonfad Road, Clonfad, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 140 Munnilly Bridge, Clonfad Road, Clonfad, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 153 Derrygoas Road, Derrygoas, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 160 Clonelty Road in the townland of Clonelty, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 161 Leitrim Bridge in the townland of Leitrim, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 167 Drumboghan Road. Drumboghanagh Glebe, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 171 Aghalane Bridge in the townland of Aghalane, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 176 Caldragh Road in the townland of Caldragh, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 177 In the townland of Greaghafine, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 178 Springtown Road in the townland of Gortoral, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 179 Gortoral Bridge in the townland of Gortoral, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 180 Swanlinbar River in the townland of Gortoral, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 181 Stumpy Road in the townland of Stumpy's Hill. Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 190 Aghavanny Road in the townland of Drumcully, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 191 Cashel Road in the townland of Frevagh, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 192 Off the Latone Road in the townland of Frevagh, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 193 Kilcoo Road in the townland of Carran West, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 197 Rossinver Road in the townland of Carran West, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 198 Abhomahela Bridge on the Drumnasreane Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 199 Manger Beg on the Manger Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 200 Laughill off the White Island Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 205 Cliff Road to the north of Belleek, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 207 Off the Boa Island Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 211 Meenatully Road in the townland of Meenatully, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 212 Tullyvogy Road in the townland of Tullyvogy, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 213 Letter Bridge on the Letter Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 215 In the townland of Tullyhommon, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 216 In the townland of Tullyhommon to the north of Pettigo, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 218 Lurganboy Bridge in the townland of Lurganboy, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 223 Termon Bridge on the Formil Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 224 Movarren Road in the townland of Gortnaree, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 227 Clogher Bridge on the Scraghy Road, Co. Fermanagh;

  BCP 228 The Black Gap, Tievanameenta Upper, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 229 Shanaghy Road, Tievanameenta Upper, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 230 Conthem, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 231 Kelly's Bridge. Leaghany, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 232 Sruhangarve Bridge on the Corgary Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 233 Croagh Bridge off the Corgary Road, Co. Tyrone;

  292

  BCP 234 Meenreagh Bridge off the Corgary Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 235 Laghtfoggy Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 236 Laghtmorris Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 238 Carn Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 240 Moneygal Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 241 Off the Moneygal Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 243 Causey Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 246 Lurganboy Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 247 Listymore Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 249 Orchard Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 250 Off the Lisdoo Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 253 Off the Lisdoo Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 258 Clady Bridge, Urney Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 259 Off the Urney Road, Co. Tyrone;

  BCP 261 Dismantled railway, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 263 Ballougry Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 265 Off the Mullenan Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 267 Liberty Bridge, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 268 Millbrook Bridge, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 270 Glen Bridge, Bligh's Lane, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 274 Groarty Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 276 Coshquin Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 278 Elagh Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 279 Off the Upper Galliagh Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 280 Upper Galliagh Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 282 Fanny Wyllie's Bridge, Lenamore Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 283 Alder Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 285 Racecourse Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 287 Off the Racecourse Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 289 Coney Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 290 Heyburn's Crossing, Coney Road, Co. Londonderry;

  BCP 291 Cannings Lane, Coney Road, Co. Londonderry.

  North Belfast (26 September Disturbances)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she has received a report on disturbances in North Belfast involving members of the Paratroop Regiment on 26 September; and if she will make a statement. [13063]

  Mr. Ingram
  It has been reported that there have been allegations made about the behaviour of military personnel on the Oldpark Road in the early hours of Sunday 27 September. The allegations have not been the subject of a formal complaint. However, a full inquiry has been carried out which ascertained that there were no military vehicles in the area at the time alleged.

  Security
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will consider introducing a greater level of transparency into the assessment of the security situation. [13061]

  Mr. Ingram
  Both the Chief Constable and Ministers regularly provide up-to-date assessments of the security situation which are as comprehensive as possible. Most recently members of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland visited Northern Ireland and were provided with a detailed up-to-date briefing on the current security situation. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that the
  293
  nature of some information available to the Government and the security forces is of such a sensitive nature that it cannot be placed in the public domain.

  Holding Centres
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been

  Persons Detained in Holding Centres

  April to September 1997

  Castlereagh

  Gough

  Strand Road

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  April

  43

  4

  9

  —

  3

  —

  55

  4

  May

  21

  1

  9

  —

  —

  —

  30

  1

  June

  42

  3

  5

  1

  5

  1

  52

  5

  July

  23

  1

  3

  —

  2

  1

  28

  2

  August

  23

  1

  20

  —

  2

  —

  45

  1

  September

  18

  3

  11

  1

  1

  —

  30

  4

  Total

  170

  13

  57

  2

  13

  2

  240

  17

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what target date has been set for the conclusion of the consultation exercise on the recommendations made in the fourth annual report of the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres. [13066]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following consultation with the relevant interested parties, the Secretary of State wrote to the Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres on 26 September 1997 in response to a number of the recommendations made in his fourth annual report. Some matters remain outstanding and when these have been resolved the Secretary of State will write again setting out the Government's full response. A copy of that letter, when it is issued, will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Vehicle Checkpoints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the location of permanent vehicle checkpoints in Northern Ireland in September 1994 and September 1997, indicating anticipated changes in the next six months providing there is no major change in the overall security context. [13059]

  Mr. Ingram
  The locations of permanent vehicle checkpoints in Northern Ireland in September 1994 and September 1997 are as follows:

  As at September 1994

  As at September 1997

  Middletown

  Removed

  Cloghoge (Newry/Dublin Road)

  Inactive but structure still present

  Aughnacloy

  Inactive but structure still present

  Bessbrook X3

  Reduced structures but still in use

  Bessbrook High Street

  Removed

  Mahon Road, Portadown X2

  Still in use

  Letterkenny Road, Londonderry

  Inactive but structure still present

  294
  detained in each of the holding centres in each of the last six months, by (a) gender and (b) perceived religious/community origin. [13065]

  Mr. Ingram
  Set out below are details on the number of persons detained in each of the three holding centres in each month from April to September, categorised by gender. The religious/community origin of persons detained is not recorded.

  As at September 1994

  As at September 1997

  Buncrana Road, Londonderry

  Removed

  Muff, Culmore Road, Londonderry

  Inactive but structure still present

  The Hump, Strabane

  Inactive but structure still present

  Clady

  Removed

  Rosscor Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Wattle Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Mullan Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Gortmullan

  Inactive but structure still present

  Annaghmartin

  Inactive but structure still present

  Killyvilly

  Inactive but structure still present

  Clonatty Bridge

  Inactive but structure still present

  Kilturk

  Removed

  Donegall Pass, Belfast

  Removed

  Belfast International Airport

  Inactive for a period, but returned to use following end of ceasefire

  Since the ceasefire many of the permanent vehicle checkpoints are no longer used as checkpoints, however the structures are still manned—they fall into the category which reads "Inactive but structure still present".

  In addition, the Civilian Search Unit manned vehicle checkpoints in Belfast at five locations—Royal Avenue, High Street, Queen Street, Donegall Place and Victoria Square. These were removed in September 1994.

  All security measures, including permanent vehicle checkpoints are continually reviewed; any changes will depend on the assessment of threat at the time.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to investigate developments in the bus industry as a result of mergers and take-overs of privatised former national bus companies and municipal bus undertakings; and if he will make a statement. [13705]
  295
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]Each merger qualifying for consideration under the Fair Trading Act 1973 is considered on its individual merits. The President of the Board of Trade has said that her general policy will be to make merger references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission primarily on competition grounds.

  The Government are currently reviewing the provision and regulation of local bus services as part of the development of an integrated transport policy.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what agreements exist between her Department and BNFL relating to medium-term financial targets; when the most recent target was agreed; and if it assumed mixed oxide fuel would be manufactured by BNFL. [12949]

  Mr. Battle
  Three-year external financing limits are set for BNFL within the context of the annual corporate plan published by the company. BNFL's EFL for 1997–98 was adjusted from £–67,000,000 to £–169,000,000 to reflect an improved trading performance since the EFLs for three years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 were set in the 1996 Budget. The EFLs were set on the assumption that mixed oxide fuel would continue to be manufactured at Sellafield.

  Ministerial Financial Interests
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the areas of departmental business from which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has excluded himself as a result of previous financial interests. [12585]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Ministers in this Government will continue to make public statements about their involvement in specific cases where it is valuable for the conduct of a specific case.

  I knew on being appointed a Minister that a small shareholding in the companies detailed below were likely to be released from my late father's estate during summer 1997. For that reason I have stood aside from consideration of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on P and 0/Stena, and papers relating to the European Commission's investigation under the European Community Merger Regulation of the proposed acquisition by Dupont of certain ICI businesses.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes there have been since 1 May to her Department's planned funding for Business Links(a) in the current year, (b)(c) 1999; what were the figures on 1 May; and what are the figures now. [13521]
  296
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]There have been no changes to the planned funding for Business Links in the current financial year; £38.1 million is available towards the cost of establishing the Business Link network and £102.8 million towards the cost of Business Link services.

  As with all Government programmes, Business Link funding for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is currently being considered as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the results of the latest survey of Business Links' levels of activity, including the number of small businesses using Business Links. [13520]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]A detailed report on Business Link management information is issued quarterly and a copy placed in the House of Commons Library. The report for the period from April to June 1997 will be published later this month.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the suppliers to her Department who have not been paid within the target period during the past year. [13525]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]All Departments are required to pay their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is the later, where no such terms exist. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Government will publish a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97 shortly.

  Plutonium
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action will be taken to dispose of Britain's stockpile of civil plutonium. [14304]

  Mr. Battle
  Decisions on the utilisation of United Kingdom's civil plutonium stocks are for the owners of these stocks, including Magnox Electric, British Energy and BNFL's overseas customers, subject to meeting the necessary physical protection and safeguards requirements. There is no quick and easy way to dispose of the United Kingdom's stocks of civil plutonium. One option is to use some of this plutonium to fabricate mixed oxide fuel to burn in civil nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

  The United Kingdom attaches great importance to ensuring that rigorous arrangements are in place to protect against the risk of theft, sabotage or diversion of any of

  297
  its plutonium stocks. These stocks are kept under the close scrutiny of the EURATOM Safeguards Office and International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the level of trade between Britain and Bangladesh in the last year for which figures are available. [14253]

  Mr. Roche
  In 1996, trade in goods between Britain and Bangladesh was worth £351 million, 9 per cent. higher than a year earlier. The value of UK exports of goods fell by 20 per cent. to £72 million while UK imports rose by 21 per cent. to £280 million. Information on trade in services with Bangladesh is not available.

  THORP Nuclear Plant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent reports she has received from British Nuclear Fuels plc concerning how the THORP plant will operate. [14361]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department maintains regular contact with BNFL on a wide range of issues. Since THORP began operations in March 1994 some 680 tonnes of fuel had been sheared and dissolved to the end of March 1997.
  I understand that THORP is planned to reprocess 7,000 tonnes of spent fuel in the first 10 years of operation.

  Independent Research and Technology Institutions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made since July in respect of the tax exempt status of those independent research and technology institutions which she is currently reviewing; and if she plans to amend the guidelines for exemption. [14399]

  Mr. Battle
  I am still considering the responses to my Department's recent consultation exercise on draft revised guidelines for applicants and will make an announcement in due course.

  Mersey Dock and Harbour Company
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the industrial dispute at the Mersey Dock and Harbour Company; and if she will make a statement. [13991]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]My Department has received representations about this dispute from trade union organisations, members of the public and the dockers, their representatives and supporters.

  The Government's position is that industrial disputes are matters for the parties concerned, with assistance of
  298
  the independent Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service where both sides agree. It is not for the Government to intervene.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she is responsible; if she will state in each case(i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if she will make a statement. [13583]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 November 1997]The estimated cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in the core DTI is £2.7 million.

  Expenditure incurred and planned is as follows:

  £

  (i) To date

  266,000

  (ii) 1997–98

  1,353,000

  (iii) 1998–99

  1,090,000

  (iv) 1999–2000

  259,000

  These sums will be found from within existing and planned PES provision. Executive Agencies and other public sector bodies with which DTI is associated are finalising their own cost forecasts.

  Trading Standards
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she intends to review the current law in respect of the use of minors by trading standards officers to make test purchases of items which should not legally be sold to them; and if she will make a statement. [14317]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]Since local authorities, for which trading standards officers work, already have the necessary powers to make test purchases and use minors where appropriate, I have no plans at present to review the current legislation for which I am responsible in this respect. However, I am aware by virtue of my participation in the Ministerial Group on Alcopops that my colleagues at the Home Office are working towards clarifying the law on the use of children in relation to test purchases of alcohol.

  Small Business
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the Government-sponsored organisations which provide(a) grant information and (b) grants to small businesses. [14619]

  Mr. Roche
  Details of grants for small firms are contained in the DTI publication "A guide to sources of help for small firms". In addition, there are local sources of financial help. Small businesses seeking grants and
  299
  advice about grants should contact their local Business Link. Grants and advice may also be available from Training and Enterprise Councils, Local Enterprise Companies in Scotland, LEDU in Northern Ireland, Local Enterprise Agencies, Local Authorities and Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the Energy Council meeting on 27 October. [15189]

  Mr. Battle
  The Council considered an amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas.

  The Council discussed the mechanisms to be included in the Directive for opening up natural gas markets to competition on an incremental basis. It also considered the procedures and criteria for the granting of possible derogations from the Directive in respect of financial problems which might arise in a competitive market from the long-term contractual commitments of gas companies. In addition, it discussed a number of other issues relating to the Directive, including the treatment of emergent regions and upstream pipelines, the unbundling of company accounts, the authorisation of distribution and arrangements for access to downstream gas grids.

  The Council noted the substantial progress made to date in the negotiations and confirmed its political willingness to reach a common position on the Gas Directive at the next Energy Council on 8 December 1997.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she plans to publish the fourth report of the Chief Child Support Officer; and if she will make a statement. [15187]

  Ms Harman
  I am today publishing the Annual Report of the Chief Child Support Officer for the year 1996–97. This report records the outcome of the monitoring of decision making in the Child Support Agency during 1996–97 by the Chief Child Support Officer, who reports to me on standards of adjudication. The Report indicates that there is still cause for concern, but that progress has been made. Twenty-two per cent. of decisions monitored had resulted in a child support liability that was wrong in cash terms but more than half had been decided in a way that did not meet all the requirements of the legislation. In his foreword, the Chief Child Support Officer comments on"continuing improvement but with some way to go before standards are acceptable widely".

  While we are aware that much still needs to be done, we acknowledge the progress which this Report reflects. All children have the right to the care and support of both their parents wherever they may live. Child support tackles child poverty and can also offer lone mothers the opportunity to provide for themselves and their children
  300
  by working, rather than relying on benefits. The effective operation of the child support scheme is essential to ensure these rights and provide these opportunities.

  I expect to see continuing progress both as the result of continued efforts by Child Support Agency staff and, in due course, as the provisions in the Social Security Bill are implemented. However, we will be looking closely at the operation of the Child Support Agency in the coming months to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service to all its clients.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the four schemes operated in the voluntary sector outlined in the New Deal for Lone Parents—October 1997 report, with special reference to(a) the funding which the Department of Social Security will make available to those schemes and (b) the ways in which these schemes will interact with the New Deal for Lone Parents scheme. [14681]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Beta 2000, Instant Muscle, the Sandwell Afro Caribbean Development Agency and, jointly, Gingerbread and Training For Life have been contracted to set up and run innovative schemes to help lone parents on Income Support to take up work. Payments are made to contractors on a monthly basis, dependent on satisfactory performance, with additional amounts payable in respect of each lone parent helped into work. Precise payment details are commercial in confidence. The areas in which these contractors are operating do not overlap with areas covered by the first phase of the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  In addition to the four schemes being operated by the organisations listed above, the National Council for One Parent Families were contracted to produce a guide for employers which presents the business case for employing lone parents. This guide is being distributed throughout the country initially through the Opportunity 2000 network and can also be obtained by contacting a national helpline.

  All of the contracts concerned were set up in the context of testing different approaches to helping lone parents into work over a three year period. Contracts were initially issued for one year and decisions on their renewal will be made in the context of the national implementation of the New Deal for Lone Parents from October next year. Any lessons learned from the evaluation of both the first phase of the New Deal for Lone Parents and the voluntary sector innovative schemes will inform the design of the national programme.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to address the shortfall between the amount paid in housing benefit in respect of mortgage interest payments and the amount charged by building societies at variable interest rates. [14670]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have no current plans for shadowing actual interest rates charged to individual borrowers on benefit.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of mortgages are covered by those lenders on whose interest rates the standard interest rate for unemployed homebuyers is calculated. [14556]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  The standard interest rate is based on an average of approxiately 30 of the largest Building Societies. Currently 25 per cent. of mortgages for home purchase, by value, are covered by all Building Societies.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the entitlement of disability living allowance for Peter Walsh, N.I. No. WM 00 36 58C was disallowed; when the request for a review was made; at what stage a consultant's report was requested; and when the review will be determined. [14277]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. We need to focus on those who are properly entitled to benefit.

  This is why we have set up the Benefit Integrity Project. The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 5 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning Mr Walsh and his entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) was set up in response to the recent Benefit Review of DLA. Over the next two years, specially trained staff will make enquiries by postal questionnaire or home visit in around 425,000 cases to establish whether DLA is being paid correctly. Mr Walsh was contacted through the enquiry work of the BIP.
  Following receipt of a completed BIP questionnaire from Mr Walsh and based on the information he provided, Mr Walsh was disallowed DLA from 14 August 1997. A review of this decision was requested on 24 September 1997. After full consideration by an Adjudication Officer, further information was sought in the form of a Consultant's report on 22 October 1997. A decision will be made on Mr Walsh's entitlement on receipt of this report. The Agency aims to complete 60% of review decisions within 55 working days, and 80% within 75 working days.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many personnel in civilian capacities have been awarded war disablement pensions through service in the Gulf war; and to which units they were attached. [13509]
  302
  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is that delivery of service should be simpler and more efficient. Queries on operational matters concerning the War Pensions Agency are for its Chief Executive, Mr. Kevin Caldwell. I have asked him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 5 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many personnel in civilian capacities have been awarded War Disablement Pension through service in the Gulf War and to which units they were attached.
  No awards of War Pension have been made in respect of service by civilians in the Gulf War.
  The only provision for civilians in the War Pensions arena is The Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme. This Scheme was introduced at the outbreak of World War II under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939 to provide for civilians who were disabled by war injuries sustained as a result of enemy action during World War II. The Scheme does not cover injuries sustained in any other conflicts.
  Personnel employed in a civilian capacity who do not satisfy these provisions, and who wish to claim compensation for disablement due to their employment, should approach their employers direct.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

SCOTLAND

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the functions relating to payment for goods or services supplied for which his Department is responsible indicating the management systems purchased, all sub-contractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other departments; and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [12571]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department is responsible for the following functions in relation to payment for goods and services:confirming the receipt of goods and services (done locally);
  checking the supplier's invoice (done locally);
  authorising payment (done locally by someone other than the person who ordered the goods and checked the supplier's invoice);
  Keying payment instructions into the main accounting system (done locally or centrally depending on specific arrangements). In a number of instances involving large numbers of individual payments, paying authorising information is supplied to the accounting system by separate systems which manage the individual schemes (though these tend to be for grant and similar schemes (e.g., student awards) rather than the supply of goods and services);
  issuing payment (done centrally, and may be by BACS or by payable order).

  Payment processing is carried out on my Department's accounting system which utilises cfacs, a package designed by Cedardata plc and supplied to my Department under a contract with International Computers Ltd.
  303
  No sub-contractors are involved in making payments for goods and services.

  Apart from two executive agencies and one of the associated departments, all Scottish Office and associated departments, including their respective executive agencies, share this one accounting and payments system.

  It is not possible to isolate the costs of setting up and maintaining those parts of the Department's accounting system which deal with payments (which in any event are for a wider range of activities than purchasing goods and services) from the costs of setting up and maintaining the system as a whole. In 1997–98 the sums paid to suppliers in connection with the operation of the accounting system as a whole will be £230,764. The cost, in 1997–98, of employing those staff whose duties related solely to the making of payments was £239,262. Nor is it possible, except at disproportionate cost, to calculate the cost of the time incurred by staff for whom the making of payments is only one of many duties.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of external consultancies associated with the specification of the proposed PH contract at the Western General hospital trust, Edinburgh, and from which budgets these costs were met; what was the estimated cost of the proposed contract at the time the decision was taken not to proceed with the contract; and what is the estimated cost of the publicly financed development at the Western general hospital Edinburgh announced on 23 June. [12750]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]The Western General Hospital NHS Trust incurred around £1.6 million in fees for design, financial and legal advice in connection with the proposed PH project. The costs were met by the trust from its own resources including non-recurring revenue grants from the Scottish Office. Much of the expenditure incurred would be required under both PH and publicly funded routes.

  In June, the estimated capital value of the PH project was £70 million. The estimated cost of the smaller publicly funded development is £40 million excluding VAT.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what role Ministers of the Northern Ireland Office undertook in relation to the application by convicted prisoner Jason Campbell for the transfer from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland; [13422]

  (2) when he was first made aware of the approval of the application to transfer convicted prisoner Jason Campbell from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland; [13417]

  (3) on what dates (a) he and (b) the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, were first made aware of the application to transfer convicted prisoner Jason Campbell from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland; and by whom; [13421]
  304
  (4) when the Minister of State at the Scottish Office responsible for Home Affairs authorised or consented to the transfer of convicted prisoner Jason Campbell from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland. [13414]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]Northern Ireland Ministers received confirmation on 25 September that Jason Campbell had applied for a transfer. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland contacted the Minister of State at The Scottish Office, also on 25 September, with a request that the application be dealt with promptly. The Minister of State passed that request on to the Scottish Prison Service. He was told on 4 October that an offer of transfer had been approved. I was first made aware of the application, and the fact that it had been approved, on 5 October.

  Ministers have since reviewed the relevant procedures and will in future be notified at an early stage of any applications for transfer between jurisdictions.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps were taken by Scottish Office Ministers to ascertain whether in the case of the application by convicted prisoner Jason Campbell for transfer from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland the criteria for such a transfer were genuinely met; [13418]

  (2) on what specific grounds and in relation to which particular criteria he reversed the decision to authorise the transfer of convicted prisoner Jason Campbell from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland. [13415]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]Investigations showed that Jason Campbell had provided false information on his application form, and I made it clear in my statement of 10 October that the transfer should not have been approved.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) under what statutory provision or regulation the original approval of a transfer for the convicted prisoner Jason Campbell from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to Maze prison in Northern Ireland was given; and at whose immediate request; [13420]

  (2) which Minister or official of the Scottish office first authorised the transfer of the convicted prisoner Jason Campbell from HM prison Shotts, within the Scottish system, to the Maze prison in Northern Ireland; and on what date. [13419]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]The original application for transfer under the Criminal Justice Act 1961 was approved by the Scottish Prison Service under the delegated authority of the Secretary of State on 25 September 1997.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what applications for transfer of convicted prisoners from the Scottish prisons system to the Northern Ireland prisons system are currently under consideration. [13423]
  305
  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]As of 4 November, applications from 3 prisoners have been submitted to the Scottish Prison Service for transfer to Northern Ireland and these will be considered on their merits.

  Political Prisoners
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances a prisoner within the Scottish prison system may be described as political. [13416]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]There are no circumstances in which a prisoner within the Scottish prison system would be described as political.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14387]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 216.

  Prison Service Recruitment
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Prison Service recruitment policy. [15188]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Prison Service manages its recruitment in accordance with the Civil Service Commissioners Recruitment Code. This ensures that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit. The recruitment arrangements in place are subject to internal management checks and were audited by the Civil Service Commissioners in 1996.

  Details of the recruitment carried out in 1996-97 including the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of open and fair competition are contained in the Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for 1996–97, a copy of which is in the Library.

WALES

  Public Transport
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many passenger miles were travelled by people on public transport in Wales in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [14077]

  Mr. Hain
  The National Travel Survey is the only source of comprehensive information on journeys by public transport. It provides information for Welsh residents rather than for journeys within Wales. The sample is insufficient to give reliable figures for individual years but the average annual mileage travelled 306
  by Welsh residents on public transport is estimated at 1.5 billion miles over the three-year period 1991 to 1993 and 1.2 billion miles for 1994 to 1996.

  The annual inquiry of Public Service Vehicle operators provides information on local bus and coach journeys within Wales, with an estimated 0.5 billion passenger miles per year since 1992.

  Farming
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration is currently being given to an application for European funds to offset the effects of Green Pound price fluctuations on agricultural prices and subsidies; and if he will make a statement. [14165]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Paying the aid would have significant implications for UK public expenditure. We are keeping the case of payment under review, but on the evidence currently available have concluded that the case for payment is at present not proven.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received in the past six months on the subject of Green Pound fluctuations in respect of the value of subsidies received by Welsh farmers; and if he will make a statement. [14078]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Department has received written representations from the two farming unions in Wales and seven others on the impact of Green Pound fluctuations on agriculture. Ministers and officials have also received delegations from farming and farm-related organisations on several occasions.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he last met representatives of the National Farmers' Union in Wales to discuss current farming issues; and if he will make a statement; [14080]

  (2) how many representations he has received on the review of hill livestock compensatory allowance; and if he will make a statement. [14084]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and I have received seven representations from industry bodies and Members of Parliament concerning the 1997 Autumn Review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. My right hon. Friend and I also recently met, separately, representatives of the National Farmers' Union of Wales and the Farmers' Union of Wales as part of the Review in Wales to discuss the level of rates for the 1998 Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance scheme year. We are now considering, with Ministers from all the Agriculture Departments, the representations we have received before making final decisions on rate levels for 1998.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14389]
  307
  Mr. Ron Davies
  A full list of statutory instruments laid before the House, whether under the affirmative or the negative procedure during the summer adjournment, is contained int he House of Commons "Votes and Proceedings" dated Monday 27 October 1997, which has been publicly available since Tuesday 28 October 1997.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Loans
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend access to student loans for part-time students in higher education; and if he will make a statement. [13170]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government agrees with the Dearing Committee's conclusion that in the light of other requirements for additional funding in higher education, and the fact that many part-time students have access to other resources, extending loans to part-time students should not be a priority. The Committee looked at other ways of securing equity for part-time students, and we are considering its recommendations. In this context, we have already announced that we shall be making funds available for the remission of fees for part-time students who have lost their jobs. We have also indicated that part-time students will benefit from support from increased access funds.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend eligibility for supplementary hardship loans to part-time students in higher education from 1998–99; and what estimate he has made of the cost. [14433]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government has no plans to extend eligibility for supplementary loans, but in line with the Dearing Committee's recommendations is considering other ways of supporting part-time students who experience financial hardship. We have already announced that we shall be making funds available for the remission of fees for part-time students who have lost their jobs. We have also indicated that part-time students will benefit from support from increased access funds.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what age considerations will be taken into account in decisions on eligibility for student loans in higher education from 1998–99. [14432]

  Dr. Howells
  In the 1998–99 academic year, students who are aged 50 or over when their courses begin will not be eligible for student loans, but will be entitled to fee support and maintenance grants on the same basis as other students. We are reviewing the eligibility criteria, including those relating to age, which will apply to student loans in 1999–2000 and beyond.

  Employment Zones
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on introducing prototype employment zones; and if he will make a statement. [14422]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  On 15 September we published a prospectus and invited eight areas to bid to become prototype Employment Zones. All eight areas submitted outline bids on 6 October which were very encouraging. Final bids are due on 17 November and we expect to announce the successful partnerships in early December with the prototype Employment Zones starting in February 1998.

  New Deal
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice his Department has given to the Employment Service on the minimum weekly wage that should be payable to 18 to 25-year-olds offered employment under the New Deal. [14428]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This Department's policy is set out in the Design of the New Deal for 18–24-year-olds which states that:"Employers [will] not make a direct cash profit from the subsidy, but that the New Deal employee [will cost] them in wages at least as much as they receive in subsidy. It is expected that the New Deal employees will receive the normal rate paid to comparable employees of the company".

  A copy of the Design of the New Deal for 18–24-year-olds has been placed in the Library.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the total costs of the Office for Standards in Education since being established and (b) the annual costs. [14363]

  Mr. Byers
  The total cost of Ofsted from April 1993 to March 1997 was £313 million. The costs from September 1992 to March 1993 were within the budget of the Department of Education and were not separately identified.

  Annual costs are as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  46

  1994–95

  63

  1995–96

  82

  1996–97

  122

  1997–98 (forecast)

  151

  Students (Fees)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to exempt unemployed students on part-time higher education courses from tuition fees from 1998–99; and what estimate he has made of the cost. [14431]
  309
  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to make funds available from 1998–99 to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to enable universities and colleges in England to remit fees for part-time students in higher education who have lost their jobs. Some £2 million will be available for this purpose in 1998–99. Further information will be issued in due course.

  Adult Education
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about his plans for adult vocational postgraduate education in the United Kingdom in colleges of education. [13108]

  Dr. Howells
  The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education chaired by Sir Ron Dearing, published on 23 July, recommended that more sub-degree provision should take place in FE colleges and that there should be no growth in degree level qualifications offered by FE colleges. The consultation on the report's recommendations ended in early October and we are still considering the responses. We will respond to this and other Dearing Report recommendations in due course.

  Recruitment (Non-EU Residents)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements exist in respect of visas, work permits and length of allowable stay to encourage the recruitment of non-European Union residents with special qualifications and expertise in areas where(a) the United Kingdom and (b) EU states have shortfalls. [13112]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The work permit arrangements are designed to allow UK employers to fill posts requiring high level qualifications, senior level responsibilities, or rare technical skills for which no suitably qualified resident labour is available.

  These arrangements are continuously reviewed to take account of changes in the UK labour market. Other EU Member States generally have their own, broadly similar, systems.

  Work permits are approved for periods up to a maximum of four years. The period of approval depends on the skills and experience required and the length of time the need is expected to continue.

  Visas are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will produce copies of the report "Excellence for Children-Meeting Special Educational Needs" in a video format for British Sign Language users. [14594]
  310
  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is impractical to produce the SEN Green Paper in video format. I hope that, in consulting on the Green Paper, organisations representing hearing-impaired people will take into account the views of those who are unable to access the printed document.

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students who did not hold a British passport enrolled at United Kingdom universities from(a) other EU countries and (b) south-east Asia for each of the last five years; and what are the projected enrolment figures for (i) the current academic year and (ii) the next two academic years. [14695]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Teachers (Redundancy)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers others than those in further or higher education or independent schools(a) were made redundant and (b) did not have their contracts renewed for each month from September 1996 to September 1997. [14694]

  Mr. Byers
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  University Applications
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of university applications for 1997-98 and the levels of parental income of applicants compared to previous years; and if he will make a statement. [14559]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to the hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Retired Teachers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column 819, what proportion of teachers, other than those in further or higher education or independent schools, who retired under the age of 60 years in the period October 1996 to September 1997 retired (a) on the grounds of (i) ill-health, (ii) efficiency or (iii) redundancy and (b) aged (1) under 30, (2) 30 to 34, (3) 35 to 39, (4) 40 to 44, (5) 45 to 49, (6) 50 to 54 and (7) 55 to 59 years. [14702]

  Mr. Byers
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the annual cost of returning to the full grant system for higher education. [14562]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Trade Union Membership
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the work force are members of trades unions in each member state of the European Union. [14504]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following table contains the information sought:

  Member state

  Union density, 1995

  Austria

  41

  Belgium

  54

  Denmark

  80

  Finland

  79

  France

  9

  Germany

  29

  Greece

  24

  Ireland

  55

  Italy

  44

  Netherlands

  26

  Luxembourg

  n/a

  Portugal

  26

  Spain

  19

  Sweden

  91

  United Kingdom

  33

  Sources:

  ILO World Labour Report, 1997–98, OECD Employment Outlook July 1997.

  Notes:

  All figures for 1995, the most recent consistently available, bar Belgium (1994) and Ireland (1990). Figures for Luxembourg are unavailable. Union density is union members as a proportion of wage and salary earners. Figures are compiled in a variety of different ways across member states and are not strictly comparable in all cases.

DEFENCE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13656]

  (2) when the Queen Victoria School became operational as a defence agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13336]

  (3) when the Service Children's Education became operational as a defence agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13376]

  (4) when the Defence Postal and Courier Service became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13340]

  (5) what evaluation of the Defence Secondary Care Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13652]
  312
  (6) when the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment became operational as a defence agency; what targets it has been set; what evaluations of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13332]

  (7) when the Defence Transport and Movements Executive became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13658]

  (8) what targets have been set for the Defence Vetting Agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement;[13338]

  (9) what evaluation of the Medical Supplies Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13650]

  (10) when the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13653]

  (11) what evaluation he has made of the Defence Analytical Services Agency; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13163]

  (12) when the RAF Personnel Management Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13333]

  (13) when the (a) Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency, (b) Army Individual Training Organisation, (c) Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, (d) Army Base Repair Organisation, (e) Army Personnel Centre and (f) Army Technical Support Authority became operational; what targets have been set for each; what evaluation of each body's work has taken place; when he expects further reviews to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13167]

  (14) when the Navel Bases and Supplies Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13659]

  (15) when the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13339]

  (16) what evaluation of the Disposal Sales Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13651]

  (17) what evaluation of the Defence Bills Agency his Department has made; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13164]

  (18) when the Defence Clothing and Textile Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13378]
  313
  (19) what evaluation of the Ships Support Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13330]

  (20) when the Defence Animal Centre became operational; what evaluation of its work his Department has made; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13165]

  (21) when the RAF Training Group Defence Agency became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13331]

  (22) when the Military Survey Defence Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement;[13654]

  (23) when the Logistic Information Systems Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement. [13655]

  (24) when the RAF Logistics Support Services became operational as a defence agency; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13335]

  (25) when the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation of it to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13334]

  (26) when the (a) Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, (b) Duke of York Royal Military School and (c) Hydrographic Office of the Royal Navy became operational as defence agencies; what evaluation he has made of their work; when he expects further reviews to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13168]

  (27) what evaluation of the Defence Dental Agency there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13375]

  (28) when the Defence Estates Organisation became operational; what targets have been set for it; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13657]

  (29) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mrs. Golding) of 10 July, Official Report, columns 527–28, what evaluation of the Defence Medical Training Organisation there has been; and when he expects further evaluation to take place; [13661]

  (30) when the Pay and Personnel Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement;[13337]

  (31) when the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement. [13515]

  (32) when the Naval Manning Agency became operational; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement; [13649]
  314
  (33) what targets have been set for the Defence Codification Agency; what evaluation of it there has been; when he expects further evaluation to take place; and if he will make a statement. [13377]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is given in the table; although the hon. Gentleman's questions related to only 40 agencies and trading funds, the information is provided in respect of all 43 of the Department's Agencies and Trading funds, for the sake of clarity and completeness.

  Agency

  Date of launch

  Date of evaluation1

  Key targets2 published in Official Report

  (a) Last

  (b) Date

  (b) Next due

  (b) Column

  Armed Forces

  1 April 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 20 February 1997

  Personnel

  (b) 720

  Administration

  Agency

  Army Base

  1 April 1993

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 10 February 1997

  Repair

  (b) 7

  Organisation

  Army Base

  4 April 1995

  (b) 2000

  —3

  Storage and

  Distribution

  Agency

  Army Training

  1 July 19974

  (b) 2002

  (a) 1 July 1997

  and Recruiting

  (b) 71

  Agency

  Army Personnel

  2 December

  (b) 2001

  (a) 18 March 1997

  Centre

  1996

  (b) 505

  Army Technical

  16 October

  (b) 2000

  (a) 18 March 1997

  Support Agency

  1995

  (b) 506

  Defence Animal

  1 July 1993

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 31 July 1997

  Centre

  (b)463

  Defence

  1 July 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 1 July 1997

  Analytical

  (b)72/73

  Services Agency

  Defence Bills

  1 January 1996

  (b) 1999

  (a) 31 July 1997

  Agency

  (b) 440

  Defence

  17 June 1996

  (b) 1999

  —3

  Codification

  Agency

  Defence Clothing

  22 November

  (b) 1999

  (a) 31 July 1997

  and Textiles

  1994

  (b) 464

  Agency

  Defence Dental

  1 March 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 10 July 1997

  Agency

  (b) 529

  Defence Estate

  17 March 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 18 March 1997

  Organisation

  (b) 514

  Defence

  4 April 19955

  (b) 2000

  —3

  Evaluation and

  Research Agency

  Defence

  1 October 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 31 July 1997

  Intelligence and

  (b) 462

  Security Centre

  Defence Vetting

  1 April 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 20 March 1997

  Agency

  (b) 857

  Defence Postal

  1 July 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 3 July 1997

  and Courier

  (b) 257–258

  Service Agency

  315

  Agency

  Date of launch

  Date of evaluation1

  Key targets2 published in Official Report

  (a) Last

  (a) Date

  (b) Next due

  (b) Column

  Defence

  30 April 1996

  (b)2001

  (a) 10 July 1997

  Secondary Care

  (b) 529

  Agency

  Defence

  4 April 1995

  (b) 2000

  (a) 10 July 1997

  Transport and

  (b) 529

  Movements

  Executive

  Disposal Sales

  3 October 1994

  (b)1999

  (a) 30 July 1997

  Agency

  (b) 353

  Duke of York's

  1 April 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 30 July 1997

  Royal Military

  (b)353

  School

  Hydrographic

  1 April 19965

  (b) 2001

  —3

  Office

  Joint Air

  19 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 31 July 1997

  Reconnaissance

  (b) 464

  Intelligence

  Centre

  Logistic

  21 November 1994

  (b) 1999

  (a) 31 July 1997

  Information

  1994

  (b) 257

  Systems Agency

  Logistic Support

  9 December 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 9 December 1997

  Services

  1996

  (b) 17–18

  Medical Supplies

  29 February 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 10 July 1997

  Agency

  1996

  (b) 528

  Defence Medical

  1 April 1997

  (b) 2001

  (a) 10 July 1997

  Training

  (b) 527

  Organisation

  Meteorological

  1 April 19965

  (b) 2001

  (a) 19 June 1997

  Office

  (b) 256

  Military Survey

  2 April 1991

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 31 July 1997

  (b) 463

  Ministry of

  1 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 27 October 1997

  Defence Police

  (b) 662

  Naval Aircraft

  1 April 1992

  (a) 1996

  (a) 22 July 1997

  Repair

  (b) 1999

  (b)528–529

  Organisation

  Naval Bases and

  11 December 1996

  (b) 2002

  (a) 28 October 1997

  Supply Agency

  1996

  (b) 792–793

  Naval Manning

  1 July 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 30 July 1997

  Agency

  (b) 354

  Naval Recruiting

  1 April 1995

  (b) 2000

  (a) 30 July 1997

  and Training

  (b) 355

  Agency

  Pay and

  1 February 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 23 June 1997

  Personnel

  1996

  (b)354

  Agency

  Queen Victoria

  1 April 1992

  (a) Ongoing

  (a) 30 July 1997

  School

  (b) 465

  RAF

  2 April 1991

  (a) 1996

  (a) 31 July 1997

  Maintenance

  (b) 2001

  (b)465

  RAF Personnel

  1 February 1997

  (b) 2002

  (a) 30 July 1997

  Management

  (b) 1997

  (b) 351

  RAF Signals

  22 November 1994

  (b) 1999

  —3

  Engineering

  1994

  Establishment

  316

  Agency

  Date of launch

  Date of evaluation1

  Key targets2 published in Official Report

  (a) Last

  (a) Date

  (b) Next due

  (b) column

  RAF Training

  1 April 1994

  (b) 1999

  (a) 20 March 1997

  Group

  (b) 859

  Service

  1 April 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 30 July 1997

  Children's

  (b) 354

  Ships Support

  11 December 1996

  (b) 2001

  (a) 30 July 1997

  Agency

  1996

  (b) 354

  Specialist

  1 June 1997

  (b)2002

  (a) 3 June 1997

  Procurement

  (b)122

  Services

  1Evaluation is taken to mean the periodic review of the Agency, which involves a performance evaluation, the re-visiting of the Prior Options process, and the re-issue of the Framework Document. Initial Policy was this should take place at not more than 3 year intervals, but this was later extended to 5 years, with some specified exceptions. As the process takes a period of some months, only the year in which the review is expected to take place is given. Where the first review is described as "ongoing" the second review would normally be expected to take place 5 years after the re-issue of the Framework Document.

  2 The Date and column at which the Key Targets for FY1997–98 were published in the Official Report. For the sake of clarity and completeness this information has been included for all the Department's Agencies, although the hon. Member's questions did not ask this in all cases.

  3 The 1997–98 Key Targets for these five Agencies have not yet been published in the Official Report.

  4 Formerly Army Individual Training Organisation.

  5 Date of Launch as a Trading Fund; all were previously Agencies.

  Development Sites
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the value of the development sites proposed for disposal by the Ministry of Defence, including the housing units; and when he expects the sales to be made. [13911]

  Mr. Spellar
  Based on the number of sites which are in disposal or are currently planned to become surplus, we estimate that disposal receipts for land and buildings will total some £140 million in 1997–98, £125 million in 1998–99 and £70 million in 1999–2000.

  Housing units for disposals within the Annington Homes portfolio are released to that company within the provisions of the contract of sale.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, on the study of the medical effects of the CS gas solvent methyl isobutyl ketone conducted in 1996 at the request of the Police Scientific Development Branch. [14305]

  Mr. Spellar
  In 1996 the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) Sector of DERA at Porton Down was contracted by the Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office to conduct a study of the medical effects of the CS gas solvent methyl isobutyl ketone. This report is the property of the Home Office as the contracting authority.
  317
  However CBD in consultation with the Police Scientific Development Branch will make arrangements to place a copy of this 1996 report in the Library of each House.

  Contingency Operational and Procurement Exhibition
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department and DESO are providing for UK companies to attend COPEX Jordan 1998, COPEX USA May 1998 and COPEX USA (San Diego) October 1998. [14365]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence does not subsidise or play any part in the organisation of these exhibitions. The MOD Defence Export Services Organisation, DESO, does, on occasion, inform UK companies about such exhibitions and may advise UK exhibitors.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what MOD land will be made available for the 1998 Contingency Operational and Procurement Exhibition. [14367]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has not been approached by the organisers of the 1998 Contingency and Operational Procurement Exhibition.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14378]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday, 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 216.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature of the work which is being carried out jointly between the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, and Cortecs International; what is the purpose of this work; when did this work begin; when is this work expected to end; and what assessment he has made of the value of the work. [14307]

  Mr. Spellar
  The aim of the work being carried out jointly between the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) sector of DERA at Porton Down and Cortecs International is to investigate new technologies which will facilitate the future development of oral vaccines. The collaboration began in June 1996 with the preliminary phase completed in October 1997.

  The benefit is mutual. It allows CBD to exploit Cortecs expertise in creating oral drugs, and has given Cortecs access to CBD research on vaccines. The joint project will contribute to the development of vaccines to meet both Ministry of Defence and public health requirements.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13265]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]Spending on tax consultants and other external tax advice was as follows:

  (£ pounds)

  Ministry of Defence (excluding agencies)

  Defence agencies

  NDPBs

  1995–96

  —

  27,450

  1,175

  1996–97

  5,500

  35,790

  1,175

  1997–98 (to date)

  —

  8,130

  90

  The following expenditure is anticipated

  1997–98

  4,500

  —

  1,085

  These figures exclude tax advice obtained by defence contractors and as part of wider consultancies, which could not be extracted without disproportionate cost.

  "Defence Agencies" includes all spending by the Ships Support Agency which became an Agency on 11 December 1996.

  Mine Information and Training Centre
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Mine Information and Training Centre will be set up; how many staff it will have; and what its budget will be. [14479]

  Dr. Reid
  The Mine Information and Training Centre will become fully operational on 1 January 1998. Its establishment will become fully operational on 1 January 1998. Its establishment will be one captain, one warrant officer and one senior non-commissioned officer and it will have an annual budget of £125,000.

  Harrier Accident (Wittering)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence it he will make a statement on the accident occurring on 31 October involving a Harrier jet at RAF Wittering, indicating the level of hazard caused by the plane's cargo. [14601]

  Mr. Spellar
  The only stores being carried by the aircraft at the time of the accident was a training missile, the seeker head of which had a coating containing a tiny amount of mercury thallium. As the component was destroyed on impact, the mercury thallium would have completely dissipated within about 10 seconds and, as a result, would have posed no hazard. This has subsequently been confirmed during the environmental health monitoring tests routinely carried out at aircraft crash sites.

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment for 1997–98. [15141]

  Dr. Reid
  The Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Agency's Key Targets for the financial year 1997–98 are:

  Operational strategy
  KT I: Reduce the core as far as possible and continue to refine it against the charging military need.
  KT 2: Maintain 100 per cent. of core skills to support likely operations.

  Performance strategy
  KT 3: Deliver 100 per cent. of operational tasks to time.
  KT 4: Develop Customer Supplier Agreements with principal customers and Lodger Units by 31 March 1998.
  KT 5: Deliver 85 per cent. of non-operational tasks to time.
  KT 6: Reduce the number of quality failures in delivered systems by 5 per cent. on the previous year.
  KT 7: Maintain ISO 9000 quality standards.
  KT 8: Reduce the Cost per Task Manhour, at Full Cost, by 5 per cent. on the previous year.

  Personnel strategy
  KT 9: Achieve Investors in People Accreditation by 1 December 1998.

  Financial strategy
  KT 10: Integrate the Agency's Accounts into Headquarters Logistics Command's Resource Accounting and Budget (RAB) financial system by 1 April 1998.

  Information Technology strategy
  KT 11: Complete commissioning of the Future Business System (FBS) initiative by 1 April 1998.

  Defence Codification Agency
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Codification Agency for 1997–98. [15142]

  Dr. Reid
  The Defence Codification Agency's (DCA) Key Targets for the financial year 1997–98 are:KT 1: Complete an annual policy review by 30 September of each year.
  KT 2: Examine 50,000 items per year to identify duplicate NATO stock numbers and report the duplicates to the relevant Design Authority.
  KT 3: Extend DCA's file purification service to the Army by 30 April 1998.
  KT 4: Extend DCA's file purification service to the RAF by 30 April 1998.
  KT 5: Reduce the unit cost of codification to less than £56 by 31 March 1998 (£51 by 31 March 1999, £48 by 31 March 2000, £46 by 31 March 2001 and £44 by 31 March 2002).
  KT 6: Reduce the Agency's Running Costs by 5.8 per cent. by 31 March 1998 (10 per cent. by 31 March 1999, 2 per cent. by 31 March 2000, 2 per cent. by 31 March 2001 and a further
  2 per cent. by March 2002).
  KT 7: Reduce the number of post codification queries to 13,000 in 1997–98, 12,000 in 1998–99, 11,000 in 1999–2000, 10,000 in 2000–01 and 9,000 in 2001–02.
  KT 8: To develop and encourage DCA personnel to realise their full potential through the 100 per cent. application of Investors in People (IIP) standards and practices.
  KT 9: TO provide effective leadership and to promote morale.

  Surveillance Towers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of British Army surveillance towers in Northern Ireland in September 1994 and September 1997; how may of these are on civilian property; what plans exist to withdraw some of these from use in the next six months; and if he will estimate the total annual cost of staffing and maintaining such installations in the past 12 months. [13058]

  Dr. Reid
  In September 1994 there were surveillance towers at 10 hilltop sites in the South Armagh areas, two towers in Londonderry and three surveillance posts mounted on blocks of flats within Belfast. In September 1997 there were the same number of sites in South Armagh and Belfast, but only one in Londonderry, the other having been closed in 1995. In addition to surveillance towers, the security forces maintain a number of other structures which are used for a variety of observation purposes.

  All the sites are on land either leased or requisitioned from civilians, civilian organisations or other Government agencies.

  The security situation is kept under constant review and the configuration of the military infrastructure adjusted accordingly. However, there are no plans to withdraw any of the towers from use over the next six months.

  The annual costs of staffing and maintaining these installations are not held centrally and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Civilian Complaints
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian complaints were made against each regiment of the British Army during the past three years; and how many of these led to disciplinary action. [13062]

  Dr. Reid
  Figures for complaints against the Army outside Northern Ireland are not recorded centrally. So far as the Army in Northern Ireland is concerned complaints are categorised as criminal or non-criminal. During the past three years the Royal Ulster Constabulary received the following number of criminal complaints:

  Criminal complaints

  Year

  Total

  1995

  28

  1996

  32

  1997

  165

  1 Figures up to 31 October 1997.

  A breakdown by regiment is not available. As regards non-criminal complaints the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland recommended in 1994 that these should be informally resolved at local level wherever possible. In the past three

  321
  years the numbers of non-criminal complaints dealt with in this way were as follows:

  Informal non-criminal complaints

  Year

  Total

  1995

  41

  1996

  264

  1997

  1483

  1 Figures up to 30 September 1997.

  Once again a breakdown by regiment is not available. Where informal resolution is not possible or appropriate, complaints are investigated more formally. The numbers of formal non-criminal complaints, by regiment, in the past three years are set out in the table.

  Formal non-criminal complaints

  1995

  1996

  11997

  The 1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment

  2

  —

  —

  The 1st Battalion Green Howards

  1

  —

  —

  42 Commando Royal Marines

  1

  1

  —

  The 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  3

  —

  4

  The 1st Battalion The King's Regiment

  1

  —

  —

  The Royal Military Police

  2

  —

  —

  The 3rd Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  3

  8

  12

  The 4th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  —

  —

  2

  The 5th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  —

  —

  —

  The 7th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  3

  —

  1

  The 8th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  2

  3

  7

  The 9th Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  1

  —

  2

  Unit unknown

  2

  2

  3

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment

  —

  1

  —

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Scots Regiment

  —

  1

  —

  The 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards

  —

  1

  2

  The 1st Battalion The Coldstream Guards

  —

  2

  —

  The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  —

  1

  —

  The 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  —

  2

  1

  The Scots Guards

  —

  1

  —

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  —

  —

  3

  The 3rd Battalion The Royal Air Force Regiment

  —

  —

  1

  The 3rd Battalion The Royal Horse Artillery

  —

  —

  1

  The 9th/12th Battalion The Royal Lancers

  —

  —

  1

  The 1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment

  —

  —

  2

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Artillery

  —

  1

  2

  The 1st Battalion The Highlanders

  —

  —

  1

  The 1st Battalion The Welsh Guards

  —

  —

  2

  655 Army Air Corps

  —

  —

  1

  Lisburn Station Guard Force

  —

  —

  1

  42 Battery 22 Air Defence Regiment

  —

  —

  1

  Withdrawn Military not involved

  —

  —

  1

  The 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  —

  —

  —

  The 1st Battalion The Light Infantry

  —

  —

  —

  The 1st Battalion The Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  —

  —

  —

  24 Engineer Regiment

  —

  —

  —

  The King's Royal Hussars

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  21

  24

  51

  Disciplinary action taken

  2

  1

  4

  1 To 30 September 1997.

  Military Forces, Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of part-time members of the RIR banded by salary levels in increments of £5,000 per annum and indicate the average number of hours per week in each band. [13081]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Army and RIR barracks are maintained in Northern Ireland; and if he will list those currently being planned, built, replaced, renovated, re-inforced, up-graded or extended or to be closed. [13079]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of British Army bases in Northern Ireland having approximately 100 soldiers or more is 63.

  The Army estate is kept under constant review to ensure it provides best value for money and meets operational requirements. There are no plans to build additional barracks in Northern Ireland. The future of a number of bases is under consideration, but no final decisions have yet been made.

  A continual programme of maintenance and development exists to keep the Army estate in good operational order. At present major works projects costing £300,000 or more have been initiated or are underway at the following barracks:

  Alexander Barracks

  Abercorn Barracks

  Shackleton Barracks

  Kinnegar Barracks

  Palace Barracks

  Thiepval Barracks

  Massereene Barracks

  Lisanelly Barracks

  Girdwood Barracks.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total staffing levels of the Royal Irish Regiment in September(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997, (i) in total and (ii) broken down (1) into numbers of full-time and part-time (2) by gender (3) by perceived religious/community origin and (4) battalion, and indicating those where service is limited to Northern Ireland. [13080]

  Dr. Reid
  The Royal Irish Regiment has one General Service battalion earmarked for world-wide duties, including taking turn on operations in Northern Ireland. The overall strength of the General Service Battalion as at 1 September was as follows: 572 in 1995, 576 in 1996 and 469 in 1997. There are no infantry cap-badged service women in these numbers. A breakdown by gender of other
  323
  cap badges is not readily available nor is detail on the perceived religious/community origin of serving members of the General Service Battalion.

  In addition to the General Service Battalion, there are six Home Service Battalions comprising full time (FT) and part time (PT) soldiers, who serve only in Northern Ireland, except for some training.

  1995

  1996

  HS(FT)

  HS(PT)

  HS(FT)

  HS(PT)

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  3 R Irish

  Prot

  513

  56

  409

  72

  497

  62

  395

  65

  RC

  30

  3

  10

  —

  24

  1

  10

  1

  Other

  14

  1

  9

  —

  12

  1

  11

  —

  4 R Irish

  Prot

  510

  49

  408

  53

  467

  47

  392

  51

  RC

  13

  1

  3

  —

  10

  1

  3

  —

  Other

  2

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5 R Irish

  Prot

  320

  32

  171

  20

  294

  27

  176

  17

  RC

  17

  2

  3

  1

  23

  2

  6

  1

  Other

  9

  3

  7

  2

  11

  3

  9

  1

  7 R Irish

  Prot

  392

  20

  317

  34

  374

  14

  325

  29

  RC

  12

  3

  5

  1

  15

  2

  7

  2

  Other

  10

  1

  14

  —

  3

  —

  1

  0

  8 R Irish

  Prot

  332

  46

  295

  49

  326

  39

  282

  46

  RC

  9

  1

  4

  1

  7

  1

  2

  1

  Other

  4

  —

  1

  —

  13

  2

  10

  0

  9 R Irish

  Prot

  362

  26

  211

  21

  339

  26

  185

  24

  RC

  31

  2

  15

  1

  32

  3

  30

  1

  Other

  12

  3

  9

  1

  10

  3

  6

  1

  Depot R Irish

  Prot

  208

  9

  —

  1

  194

  16

  —

  —

  RC

  29

  —

  —

  —

  25

  1

  —

  —

  Other

  12

  —

  —

  —

  10

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  5,250

  5,030

  Key:

  HS(FT)—Home Service (Full Time).

  HS(PT)—Home Service (Part Time).

  PROT—Protestant.

  RC—Roman Catholic.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the overall strength in September(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997 of British military forces in Northern Ireland broken down into numbers attached to the RAF, Royal Navy, RIR, RIR part-time and others. [13078]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Army

  10,612

  10,395

  111,016

  Royal Air Force

  1,118

  1,124

  1,140

  Royal Navy

  289

  296

  321

  The Royal Irish Regiment

  Home Service Full Time

  3,036

  2,847

  2,754

  324
  The total strength of the Home Service Battalions as at 30 September was 5,190 in 1995, 4,855 in 1996 and 4,757 in 1997. The information requested on (1) the breakdown into full-time and part-time, (2) gender, (3) perceived religious/community origin and (4) battalion is not readily available for the month of September; however the figures for 31 December 1995 and 1996 are set out in the table. Figures relating to 1997 will not be available until early next year.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  The Royal Irish Regiment

  Home Service Part Time

  2,154

  2,008

  2,003

  Total

  17,209

  16,670

  17,234

  Figures as at 30 September.

  1 Includes the Province Reserve Battalion and the Rural Reinforcement Battalion which are fully committed to Northern Ireland although only one company of each is currently deployed in the Province.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the British Army regiments currently deployed in Northern Ireland, indicating the numbers attached to each and the estimated duration of their tour of duty; and if he will make a statement on planned deployment during the next 12 months. [13083]
  325
  Dr. Reid
  The British Army Infantry Battalions currently committed to Northern Ireland are listed in the table, along with their strength and planned tour length:

  Strength

  Length of tour

  The 1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment

  604

  2 Years—until August 1998

  The 1st Battalion the Grenadier Guards

  527

  2 Years—until March 1998

  The 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry

  617

  2 Years—until August 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  598

  2 Years—until April 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  587

  2 Years—until August 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)1

  609

  2 Years—until March 1999

  The 1st Battalion The Kings's Own Scottish Borderes

  580

  6 Months—untill March 1998

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment)

  568

  6 months —until November 1997

  The 1st Battalion The Queen's Royal Hussars (The Queen's Own and Royal Irish)

  417

  6 Months —until April 1998

  The 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment

  517

  6 months—until December 1997

  The 1st Battalion The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)1

  462

  6 months —until December 1997

  The 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment

  440

  6 months—until January 1998

  Figures as at 30 September.

  1 The 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 1st Battalion The Royal Scots, respectively the Province Reserve Battalion and the Rural Reinforcement Battalion, are fully committed to Northern Ireland, although currently only one company of each is deployed in the Province.

  In addition there are six Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, totalling 4,757 soldiers, comprising both full-time and part-time members, which are wholly committed to service in Northern Ireland.

  The security situation is kept under constant review and the level of Army support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary adjusted accordingly in line with their requirements. However, it is the Department's policy not to disclose details of future deployments to the Province.

  Hunting
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas designated as sites of special scientific interest where his Department has issued a licence to hunt; and if he will make a statement. [14443]

  Mr. Spellar
  Those areas designated as sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) where a licence to hunt has been issued are as follows:

  Name of Hunt

  Name of SSSI

  Surrey Union

  Thursley and Hankley Commons

  Woolmer Forest, Bordon

  Ash to Brookwood Heaths

  Avon Vale Hunt

  Salisbury Plain

  Royal Artillery Hunt

  Salisbury Plain

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  Salisbury Plain

  East Kent Hunt

  Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment

  Great Shuttlesfield Down

  Alkham, Lydden and Swingfield

  Woods

  326

  Name of Hunt

  Name of SSSI

  Essex and Suffolk Hunt

  Roman River

  Border Hunt

  Ramsay's Bum Wood

  Grasslees Wood

  Durtrees Burn

  Harbottle Moors

  Barrow Meadow

  Linbriggs

  Barrowburn Meadows

  Cottonshopehead Quarry

  River Coquet

  Simonside Hills

  West Percy Hunt

  Barrowburn Meadows

  Linbriggs

  Harbottle Moors

  Barrow Meadows

  River Coquet

  Bewcastle Hunt

  Irthing Gorge

  Caudbeck Flow

  Spadeadam Mires

  River Eden

  Bedale Hunt

  Lower Swaledale Woodland

  West of Yore Hunt

  Stainton Moor

  Wensleydale Hunt

  Bellerby Moor

  Lunesdale Hunt

  Appleby Fell

  Ullswater Hunt

  Appleby Fell

  Brecon and Talybont Hunt

  Blaencilieni

  Irfon and Tywi Hunt

  Blaencilieni

  Glyn and Celyn Hunt

  Blaencilieni

  Sennybridge District Hunt

  Blaencilieni

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which hunts currently have a licence to hunt on his Department's land; to which areas of land licences apply; and if he will make a statement. [14441]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Foxhunts which currently have a Licence to operate on Ministry of Defence land are set out below.

  Area

  Surrey Union Hunt

  Elstead and Hankley Training

  Areas

  Avon Vale Hunt

  Sennybridge Training Area

  Royal Artillery Hunt

  Sennybridge Training Area

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  Sennybridge Training Area

  East Kent Hunt

  Cinque Ports Training Area

  Blankney Hunt

  Beckingham Training Area

  Zetland Hunt

  Feldom Training Area

  Bedale Hunt

  Dry Training Area, Catterick

  West of Yore Hunt

  Dry Training Area, Catterick

  Wensleydale Hunt

  Bellerby Ranges, Catterick

  Lunesdale Foxhounds

  Warcop Training Area

  Ullswater Foxhounds

  Warcop Training Area

  Brecon and Talybont Hunt

  Sennybridge Training Area

  Irfon and Tywi Hunt

  Sennybridge Training Area

  Glyn and Celyn Hunt

  Sennybridge Training Area

  Sennybridge District Hunt

  Sennybridge Training Area

  South Pembrokeshire Hunt

  Templeton Airfield

  Tanatside Hunt

  Nesscliffe Training Area

  North Shropshire Hunt

  Nesscliffe Training Area

  West Percy Hunt

  Otterburn Training Area

  Border Hunt

  Otterburn Training Area

  Bewcastle Hunt

  RAF Spadeadam

  Tynedale Hunt

  Albermarle Barracks

  327
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the licences granted to hunt on his Department's land in the hunting seasons(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 broken down into local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [14445]

  Mr. Spellar
  Those Licences granted to hunts broken down by Local Authority Area for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are as follows:

  a. 1995–96

  Name of Hunt

  Local authority

  Surrey Union

  Waverley District

  Guildford Borough

  Surrey Heath

  Taunton Vale Foxhounds

  South Somerset District

  Avon Vale Hunt

  West Wiltshire District

  Royal Artillery Hunt

  West Wiltshire District

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  West Wiltshire District

  East Kent Hunt

  Shepway District Council

  Dover District Council

  Essex and Suffolk Hunt

  Colchester Borough Council

  Zetland Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  Bedale Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  West of Yore Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  Wensleydale Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  Lunesdale Hunt

  Eden District Council

  Ullswater Hunt

  Eden District Council

  Brecon and Talybont Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  Irfon and Tywi Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  Glyn and Celyn Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  Sennybridge District Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  Tanatside Hunt

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Borough Council

  North Shropshire Hunt

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Borough Council

  West Percy Hunt

  Alnwick District Council

  Northumberland National Park

  The Border Hunt

  Alnwick District Council

  Tynedale District Council

  Northumberland National Park

  Bewcastle Hunt

  City of Carlisle District Council

  Tynedale Hunt

  Castle Morpeth Borough

  Council

  b. 1996–97

  Name of Hunt

  Local authority

  Surrey Union

  Waverley District

  Guildford Borough

  Surrey Heath

  Avon Vale Hunt

  West Wiltshire District

  Royal Artillery Hunt

  West Wiltshire District

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  West Wiltshire District

  East Kent Hunt

  Shepway District Council

  Dover District Council

  Blankney Hunt

  North Kesteven District Council

  Zetland Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  Bedale Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  West of Yore Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  Wensleydale Hunt

  Richmond District Council

  Lunesdale Hunt

  Eden District Council

  Ullswater Hunt

  Eden District Council

  Brecon and Talybont Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  Irfon and Tywi Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  328

  b. 1996–97

  Name of Hunt

  Local authority

  Glyn and Celyn Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  Sennybridge District Hunt

  Carmarthen County Council

  Powys County Council

  South Pembrokeshire Hunt

  Pembroke County Council

  Tanatside Hunt

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Borough Council

  North Shropshire Hunt

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Borough Council

  West Percy Hunt

  Alnwick District Council

  Northumberland National

  Park

  The Border Hunt

  Alnwick District Council

  Tynedale District Council

  Northumberland National

  Park

  Bewcastle Hunt

  City of Carlisle District Council

  Tynedale Hunt

  Castle Morpeth Borough

  Council

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the terms and conditions of hunt licences include a requirement that hunts follow the rules as set out by the Masters of Foxhounds Association; and if he will make a statement. [14447]

  Mr. Spellar
  Each Licence includes a Schedule of Hunting Rules for the hunt to abide by, one of which is that the"Masters of Foxhounds are to conduct their hunting in accordance with the Rules issued by the Masters of Foxhounds Association".

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many licences to hunt on his Department's land have been revoked in each of the last three years, indicating(a) the hunts involved and (b) the reasons for licence withdrawal; and if he will make a statement. [14439]

  Mr. Spellar
  No Licence for hunting over MOD land have been revoked in the last 3 years.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on whose authority licences are issued to hunt on his Department's land; how the terms and conditions are drawn up; and if he will make a statement. [14444]

  Mr. Spellar
  Licences are issued on the authority of the Secretary of State for Defence. The terms and conditions are agreed between the hunt and the local Defence Land Agent.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances the terms and conditions of hunt licences permit hunts to(a) block up badger setts, (b) dig out and flush foxes and (c) construct or maintain artificial earths on his Department's land; and if he will make a statement. [14446]

  Mr. Spellar
  Hunting licences do not generally contain clauses prohibiting the stopping up of badger setts, although all contain clauses stating that hunts must not cause damage to land or the woods, banks, fences and crops thereon. It is my Department's policy not to allow the practices of digging out and flushing foxes on its estate. The construction or maintenance of artificial earths on the Defence Estate is not permitted.
  329
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which hunts were issued licences to hunt on his Department's land for the(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 hunting seasons; and if he will make a statement. [14440]

  Mr. Spellar
  The licences granted to hunts were:

  (a). 1995-96

  Surrey Union

  Taunton Vale Foxhounds

  Avon Val Hunt

  Royal Artillery Hunt.

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  East Kent Hunt

  Essex and Suffolk Hunt

  Zetland Hunt Bedale Hunt

  West of Yore Hunt

  Wensleydale Hunt

  Lunesdale Hunt

  Ullswater Hunt

  Brecon and Talybont Hunt

  Irfon and Tywi Hunt

  Glyn and Celyn Hunt

  Sennybridge District Hunt

  Tanatside Hunt

  North Shropshire Hunt

  West Percy Hunt

  The Border Hunt

  Bewcastle Hunt

  Tynedale Hunt

  b. 1996–97

  Surrey Union

  Avon Vale Hunt

  Royal Artillery Hunt

  South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  East Kent Hunt

  Blankney Hunt

  Zetland Hunt

  Bedale Hunt

  West of Yore Hunt

  Wensleydale Hunt

  Lunesdale Hunt

  Ullswater Hunt

  Brecon and Talybont Hunt

  Irfon and Tywi Hunt

  Glyn and Celyn Hunt

  Sennybridge District Hunt

  South Pembrokeshire Hunt

  Tanatside Hunt

  North Shropshire Hunt

  West Percy Hunt

  The Border Hunt

  Bewcastle Hunt

  Tynedale Hunt

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Potatoes
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the deep-frying characteristics of genetically modified potatoes. [12620]

  Mr. Morley
  We are not funding any research on the deep-frying characteristics of genetically modified potatoes.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact on the income of United Kingdom farmers of the adoption of Agenda 2000 proposals. [12621]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  It is likely that the immediate result of the Commission Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the arable, beef and dairy sectors would be a reduction in total income from farming in the UK in the order of 2 per cent. of 1996 levels. Because proposals relating to modulation are unclear, this estimate assumes changes are applied on an unmodulated basis.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the European Commission Agenda 2000 document on agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [12624]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Agenda 2000 proposals are a welcome step towards positive reform of the CAP. However there are areas, for example milk, where the proposals do not go far enough. We will be looking to make progress on discussion of these during the UK Presidency of the Agriculture Council.

  Meat Hygiene
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to start publishing the hygiene scores of abattoirs and meat handling facilities. [12623]

  Mr. Rooker
  Hygiene Assessment (HAS) scores have been published in banded form in the Ministry's monthly Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report since May 1997. Publication of HAS scores for individual named licensed abattoirs and cutting plants will commence in January 1998.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances for the coming year. [12625]

  Mr. Morley
  The rates will be announced as usual later this month.

  Dioxin
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about dioxin levels in the area around the Coalite works in Bolsover. [12626]
  331
  Mr. Morley
  The Department sampled milk from 19 farms in the Bolsover area in July this year. The results of this survey were published recently and show that the levels of dioxins in all samples of milk, except from one farm, are similar to those found in other parts of the UK. The one farm runs a suckler herd and does not produce milk for human consumption.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects all transmissible spongiform encephalopathies to be eliminated from all farm animals. [12627]

  Mr. Rooker
  Research by Professor Anderson of Oxford, which was published in "Nature" last year, indicates that the BSE epidemic will reach insignificant levels by the year 2001.

  We are supporting research into sheep scrapie to learn more about this disease which we hope will enable the industry to develop future control strategies based on genetic resistance.

  Cattle Breeding
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he will introduce to encourage the farming of British Belgian Blue cattle and other pedigree beef breeds; and if he will make a statement. [12628]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to introduce initiatives to encourage the farming of British Belgian Blue cattle or other pedigree beef breeds.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the United Kingdom's(a) gross and (b) net contribution to the common agricultural policy for the year 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [12629]

  Mr. Rooker
  The United Kingdom contributes to the EU budget as a whole, and not to any particular part. The draft budget for 1998 is set at 84.7 becu (£55.9 billion), of which the CAP accounts for 41.0 becu (£27.1 billion). The 1999 budget will not be prepared until next spring. Actual expenditure will depend on various factors, including the weather, trade flows and decisions to be taken by the Council of Ministers, and cannot be predicted.

  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has made for reforming the common agricultural policy to provide greater value to consumers. [12631]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government favour a more market-oriented Common Agricultural Policy through the phasing out of production related support. The European Commission agrees with our view, and has proposed reform of the cereals, beef and dairy regimes in that direction as part of its Agenda 2000 package. If the Commission's estimated reductions in market prices feed through fully to retail, total savings to consumers in the UK would be around £1 billion—equivalent to 2 per cent. of the retail food prices index.

  English Wine Industry
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote the English wine industry. [12630]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware of the advances which the English and Welsh wine industry have made in recent years. My colleagues and I will lose no appropriate opportunity to promote the industry's products.

  Rural Needs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals the Government have to address the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas. [12632]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognise the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas. We are committed to taking an integrated approach to tackling rural problems and want to encourage a vibrant rural economy in partnership with all those interested in countryside issues. The cross-departmental Comprehensive Spending Review of Countryside and Rural Policy which is currently underway will provide a basis on which to consider these issues.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he next intends to meet the National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations to discuss conservation. [12633]

  Mr. Morley
  I am always ready to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss conservation.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the welfare of farm animals. [12615]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has put in place recently to improve the welfare of farm animals. [12634]

  Mr. Morley
  New EU rules on transport were implemented only five weeks after the General Election. We are consulting about new regulations on the welfare of calves and we are reviewing pre-export procedures for animals intended for further fattening or slaughter. The agreement we secured at Amsterdam for a new EU Treaty protocol on animal welfare has given a firm basis from which we can seek real improvements to EU welfare standards both during our forthcoming Presidency and beyond. This is only the beginning: a number of further initiatives are planned.

  Beef
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the stringency of the controls on British beef relative to those applying in the rest of the European Union. [12635]

  Mr. Rooker
  Controls on British beef are amongst the most stringent in the world.
  333
  The Commission carried out inspection missions to Member States in November and December 1996. Their report on Risk Factors and Surveillance procedures in the Community highlighted shortcomings in controls in some Member States. As a result the Commission have decided to take action against 10 Member States in respect of their apparent failure to enforce some aspects of Community legislation on BSE.

  In May the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) considered the Commission's draft report and concluded that action should be taken to extend controls on specified bovine material (SBM) to imports from the EU, and to imports from third countries, other than those where there is no known risk to BSE, unless resolved on an EU wide basis. A Commission Decision laying down controls for the removal and disposal of Specified Risk Material from cattle was adopted by the Commission on 30 July and will apply throughout the Community from 1 January 1998. In the meantime, only four other Member States have their own controls on specified material in cattle: the Republic of Ireland, France, the Netherlands and Portugal.

  Breed

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  11997

  Aberdeen Angus

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  17

  38

  51

  24

  16

  7

  6

  Aberdeen Angus x

  0

  0

  3

  7

  19

  46

  127

  164

  140

  63

  41

  13

  Aberdeen Angus x Ayrshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Aberdeen Angus x Charolais

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Aberdeen Angus x Friesian

  0

  0

  4

  14

  28

  76

  172

  184

  89

  52

  25

  6

  Aberdeen Angus x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Aberdeen Angus x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Aberdeen Angus x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  6

  2

  7

  1

  0

  Aberdeen Angus x Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Aberdeen Angus x Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Ankole

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Ayr x Charolais

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire

  0

  8

  31

  93

  195

  274

  381

  314

  209

  96

  64

  15

  Ayrshire x

  0

  1

  3

  8

  1

  7

  1

  5

  3

  1

  1

  0

  Ayrshire x Belgian Blue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Blonde D'Aquitaine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Gelbvieh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Ayrshire x Red Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Ayrshire x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Ayrshire x Welsh Black

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bazadaise

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Belgian Blue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  6

  17

  27

  19

  6

  5

  1

  Belgian Blue x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  22

  22

  25

  17

  10

  1

  Belgian Blue x Aberdeen Angus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Belgian Blue x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Belgian Blue x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Belgian Blue x Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Belted Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Black Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Black Hereford x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  1

  0

  Black Limousin x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blonde D'Aquitaine

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  2

  11

  9

  15

  8

  10

  3

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  11

  4

  1

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x Charolais

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  17

  17

  10

  5

  3

  3

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Blonde D'Aquitaine x Lincoln Red

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Blue Grey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Blue Grey x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  BSE
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the full cost of the BSE crisis to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other European Union countries. [12637]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our estimate of the financial cost of the BSE crisis to the Exchequer over the four years 1996–97 to 1999–2000 is approximately £3.7 billion. The Department has commissioned an independent study to provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of BSE across the whole UK economy and within particular regions. We do not have details of the financial cost to other EU countries.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle has been in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years, expressed as a percentage of each identifiable breed. [14180]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of cattle confirmed as having BSE in the United Kingdom in each year of the last 10 complete years and the most recent figures for 1997 are listed by cattle breed in the table:
  335

  Breed

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  11997

  Blue Roan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  British Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  British White

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  27

  4

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  British White x Aberdeen Angus

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  British White x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  British White x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brown Swiss

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  5

  4

  6

  4

  0

  9

  6

  Brown Swiss x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  4

  2

  3

  Brown Swiss x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  8

  6

  9

  11

  Brown Swiss x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Brown Swiss x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Brown Swiss x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Brown Swiss x Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Canadian Angus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Canadian Angus x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Canadian Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Charolais

  0

  0

  2

  11

  17

  41

  103

  116

  66

  54

  18

  6

  Charolais x

  0

  0

  0

  6

  7

  31

  69

  102

  72

  51

  24

  11

  Charolais x Belgian Blue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Charolais x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  27

  54

  47

  33

  16

  11

  5

  Charolais x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Charolais x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Charolais x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Charolais x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Charolais x Murray Grey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Charolais x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  2

  0

  1

  Charolais x South Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Chianin x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Chianina x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Chianina x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  3

  4

  10

  5

  3

  2

  0

  Devon x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  11

  4

  3

  2

  0

  0

  Devon x Blonde D'Aquitaine

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Devon x Friesian

  0

  1

  0

  1

  6

  3

  16

  19

  14

  9

  3

  0

  Devon x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Dutch Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Friesian

  3

  86

  2,089

  6,008

  11,615

  21,065

  29,572

  26,676

  18,632

  10,958

  6,072

  2,049

  Friesian x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  40

  98

  96

  48

  25

  15

  5

  Friesian x Ayrshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  6

  15

  22

  22

  16

  6

  2

  2

  Friesian x Belgian Blue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11

  41

  39

  27

  19

  11

  1

  Friesian x Blue Grey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Friesian x Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Friesian x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  6

  5

  5

  3

  0

  0

  Friesian x Holstein

  0

  16

  127

  204

  388

  637

  999

  1,231

  1,179

  816

  494

  206

  Friesian x Longhorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Friesian x Normandy

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Friesian x Red Poll

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Friesian x South Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  8

  7

  5

  0

  0

  1

  Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Galloway x

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Galloway x Aberdeen Angus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Galloway x Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Galloway x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Galloway x Saler

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Galloway x Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Galloway x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gelbvieh

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  3

  9

  1

  0

  3

  0

  Gelbvieh x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gelbvieh x Charolais

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gelbvieh x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Gelbvieh x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gloucester x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Guernsey

  0

  2

  19

  64

  146

  221

  332

  302

  198

  123

  68

  30

  Guernsey x

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  5

  1

  1

  0

  Guernsey x Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Guernsey x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  4

  0

  1

  Guernsey x Merse Rhine Issel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Guernsey x Murray Gray

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Guernsey x Red Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Guernsey x Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Hereford

  0

  0

  1

  24

  44

  82

  138

  144

  100

  60

  25

  11

  Hereford x

  0

  0

  9

  65

  141

  362

  727

  830

  574

  386

  195

  63

  Hereford x Aberdeen Angus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Hereford x Ayrshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  2

  1

  3

  0

  Hereford x Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford x Friesian

  0

  4

  21

  106

  242

  571

  1,150

  1,370

  755

  433

  217

  63

  Hereford x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  336 337

  Breed

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  11997

  Hereford x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Hereford x Red Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Hereford x Shorthorn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Hereford x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  8

  10

  7

  4

  4

  2

  Hereford x South Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Highland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  4

  4

  3

  2

  2

  Highland x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Highland x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Holstein

  0

  2

  62

  147

  272

  475

  475

  399

  267

  164

  116

  50

  Holstein x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  42

  128

  103

  87

  22

  13

  1

  Holstein x Ayrshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Holstein x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jersey

  0

  0

  19

  60

  135

  210

  323

  290

  230

  114

  68

  27

  Jersey x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  4

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Jersey x Belgian Blue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Jersey x Charolais

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  2

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Jersey x Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jersey x Friesian

  0

  1

  3

  2

  4

  10

  11

  4

  9

  5

  2

  3

  Jersey x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Jersey x Welsh Black

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Limousin

  0

  0

  1

  10

  13

  46

  96

  114

  88

  56

  39

  10

  Limousin x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  28

  87

  217

  335

  221

  159

  91

  42

  Limousin x Belgian Blue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Limousin x British White

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Limousin x Friesian

  0

  0

  2

  12

  32

  92

  246

  308

  183

  123

  46

  21

  Limousin x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  5

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Limousin x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  5

  6

  1

  2

  0

  Limousin x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Limousin x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  6

  3

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Limousin x Luing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Limousin x North Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Limousin x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Lincoln Red

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  3

  1

  1

  0

  Lincoln Red x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Longhorn

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Luing x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Luing x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Marchigiana

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Meuse Rhine Issel

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  5

  2

  2

  2

  1

  2

  Meuse Rhine Issel x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Meuse Rhine Issel x Ayrshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Meuse Rhine Issel x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  Meuse Rhine Issel x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  Meuse Rhine Issel x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Murray Grey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  4

  8

  6

  3

  1

  0

  Murrey Grey x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  4

  1

  1

  0

  Murray Grey x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  2

  3

  0

  0

  1

  Murray Grey x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Murray Grey x South Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Normandy x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Normandy x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  North Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  2

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Devon x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Devon x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  5

  8

  9

  1

  4

  2

  0

  North Devon x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Not Recorded

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Old English White

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Piedmontese

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Piedmontese x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Piedmontese x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Red Friesian

  0

  0

  2

  8

  28

  50

  72

  45

  48

  20

  9

  5

  Red Friesian x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Red Friesian x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Red Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Red Holstein x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Red Poll

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  2

  6

  6

  11

  2

  5

  1

  Red Poll x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Red Poll x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Red Poll x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Romagnola

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Romagnola x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Romagnola x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Saler

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Saler x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  Saler x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Shorthorn

  0

  2

  2

  20

  8

  21

  44

  67

  47

  23

  15

  1

  338 339

  Breed

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  11997

  Shorthorn x

  0

  0

  2

  2

  3

  7

  14

  11

  13

  5

  3

  0

  Shorthorn x Blue Grey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Shorthorn x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  9

  12

  11

  4

  3

  4

  1

  Shorthorn x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shorthorn x Jersey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Shorthorn x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Shorthorn x Merse Rhine Issel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shorthorn x Red Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Shorthorn x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Simmental

  0

  0

  2

  11

  16

  52

  123

  150

  111

  71

  33

  13

  Simmental x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  72

  213

  299

  195

  144

  93

  33

  Simmental x Angus

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Simmental x Belgian Blue

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Simmental x Friesian

  0

  1

  2

  8

  28

  69

  239

  242

  166

  106

  51

  14

  Simmental x Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Simmental x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Simmental x Highland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Simmental x Holstein

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  2

  Simmental x Lincoln Red

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Simmental x Luing

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  South Devon

  0

  0

  2

  4

  4

  14

  20

  33

  19

  5

  9

  1

  South Devon x Aberdeen Angus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  South Devon x Guernsey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  South Devon x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Devon x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  6

  2

  2

  0

  0

  South Down

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sussex

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  2

  4

  16

  9

  4

  6

  0

  Sussex x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  7

  3

  8

  0

  1

  1

  Sussex x Devon

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sussex x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  1

  5

  5

  7

  14

  16

  12

  3

  2

  Sussex x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Sussex x Simmental

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Welsh Black

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  4

  8

  19

  11

  5

  1

  2

  Welsh Black x

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  7

  2

  0

  1

  Welsh Black x Friesian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Welsh Black x Hereford

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Welsh Black x Limousin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  White Park

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Unknown

  1

  194

  76

  271

  599

  291

  370

  296

  217

  148

  121

  47

  Total

  4

  318

  2,493

  7,193

  14,160

  25,244

  36,989

  34,828

  24,394

  14,537

  8,131

  2,830

  11997 figures for GB to 3 November 1997. 1997 figures for NI to 31 October 1997.

  The Department does not hold data on the numbers of resident cattle by breed and cannot therefore calculate the percentages requested.

  Food Labelling
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure labels on foodstuffs carry accurate information. [12638]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are determined to improve openness and information to consumers. We have succeeded in getting EC agreement to better labelling of mechanically recovered meat and are pressing our EC partners for all foods to be labelled if they contain genetically modified material. When the review of nutrition labelling rules get underway we shall argue for more, simpler and better presented information.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agreements under the countryside stewardship scheme involve access. [12636]

  Mr. Morley
  The Countryside Stewardship Scheme Currently has 1,207 agreements which include access elements, amounting to almost 20 per cent. of total agreements.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to other EU states to urge eastern European countries to end the export of live animals to the EU. [13854]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission and other Member States are already aware of the UK Government's opposition to the long distance transport of live animals intended for further fattening or slaughter, irrespective of the origin of those animals or their destination. We will continue to make known our opposition to such trade whenever the opportunity arises.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of time spent by local veterinary inspectors in inspecting animals destined for export to ensure that they are fit to travel as required by the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997; and if he will make a statement. [13931]

  Mr. Rooker
  Local Veterinary Inspectors, as veterinary surgeons, must use their professional judgment in ensuring that sufficient time is given to assessing the fitness of animals to travel. The State Veterinary
  341
  Inspectors audit their procedures to ensure that the proper standards are maintained. In addition, for export health certification purposes, the Department will be producing clearer instruction for Local Veterinary Inspectors on what an inspection should comprise. It is proposed that this will include a benchmark for the length of time an inspection ought to take, according to the different circumstances which may prevail.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14372]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 216.

  Sea Defence (Waveney)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which areas of coastline in the Waveney constituency he considers to be most vulnerable to breaches of sea defence. [14295]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department is responsible for flood and coastal defence policy in England and significantly contributes to the funding of capital defence measures. However, individual flood and coastal defence works are designed, constructed and maintained by the Environment Agency, local councils and Internal Drainage Boards. These bodies identify the need for defence measures locally, including which areas of coastline are most vulnerable to breaching, and decide which projects to promote and their timing.

  Tax Advice
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the expenditure made by(a) his Department,(b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, on (i) tax consultants and (ii) other external tax advice in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [13253]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]The Department has made no payments of the kind described in the relevant years. Only one such payment has been made by the Executive Agencies, this being for £4,000 to a consultant, on behalf of the Meat Hygiene Service, in 1995–96.

  Information on such expenditure by non-departmental public bodies is not centrally available, but is currently being sought. I will write to the hon. Member with the collated information as soon as possible.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of his Department on the purchase of tax avoidance advice; and if he will make a statement. [13254]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 November 1997]The general policy of the Department and its Executive Agencies is that no use should be made of external 342
  consultants in respect of taxation matters. However, there was one such transaction by the Meat Hygiene Service in the financial year 1995–96, as reported in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous Question.

  Non-departmental public bodies enjoy greater freedom of action, and are responsible for their own tax affairs. However, the Department's resources are available to all such bodies and officials are sometimes consulted for advice.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much meat and bone meal is in storage as a result of the over-30-months scheme. [14598]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 31 October 267,387 tonnes of meat and bone meal were held in store.

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines he has issued to the directors of BBSRC about his Department's responsibility for core research and staff at BBSRC Institutes. [14502]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department funds research in support of its policies and, within this framework, commissions a substantial amount of research at BBSRC institutes. However, responsibility for core-funding of science and for staff at these institutes rests with the Office of Science and Technology and BBSRC management themselves. It is not therefore appropriate for this Department to issue guidelines on these matters to BBSRC Directors.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Admiralty House
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the(a) official entertainment functions and (b) conferences which have been held at Admiralty House since May 1997. [12922]

  Dr. David Clark
  Admiralty House has four state rooms, which are available for use by Ministers and Senior Officials. The following official entertainment functions have taken place there since May 1997:

  Date

  Function

  Department

  Hosted by or on behalf of

  May

  12

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief of the General Staff

  14

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief of the Air Staff

  15

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Pol)

  15

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  Permanent Under Secretary

  21

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Pol)

  22

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief of the Air Staff

  22

  Reception

  Ministry of Defence

  Secretary of State

  June

  9

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  1st Sea Lord

  11

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

  343

  Date

  Function

  Department

  Hosted by or on behalf of

  16

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief of the General Staff

  18

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief Scientific Adviser

  July

  2

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  1st Sea Lord

  7

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

  8

  Lunch

  Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service

  Permanent Under Secretary

  14

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

  16

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  Secretary of State

  17

  Lunch

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State (Europe)

  17

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  Secretary of State

  21

  Lunch

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State

  21

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  Permanent Under Secretary

  22

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

  August

  4

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief of the General Staff

  5

  Lunch

  Department for International Development

  Parliamentary under Secretary of State

  15

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Permanent Under Secretary

  26

  Lunch

  Department for International Development

  Secretary of State

  September

  3

  Lunch

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State

  3

  Dinner

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Minister for Trade

  4

  Lunch

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

  8

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief Scientific Adviser

  9

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Pol)

  11

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Pol)

  16

  Lunch

  ministry of Defence

  Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

  18

  Lunch

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Minister of State (Europe)

  22

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief of the Defence Staff

  23

  Dinner

  Department of Trade and Industry

  President of the Board of Trade

  24

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Secretary of State

  30

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff(Pol)

  30

  Dinner

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Lord Chancellor

  October

  6

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Chief of the Defence Staff

  6

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State

  7

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Secretary of State

  7

  Dinner

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  16

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  1stSea Lord

  22

  Reception

  Department of Trade and Industry

  President of the Board of Trade

  23

  Dinner

  Ministry of Defence

  1st Sea Lord

  28

  Lunch

  Ministry of Defence

  Secretary of State

  No conferences have been held at Admiralty House during this period.

  Civil Service Pensions
  Mr. MacGregor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what would be the cost of indexing pensions paid to civil servants on early retirement under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme from the ages of 50 to 55 years. [14424]

  Dr. David Clark
  Civil Service pensions, along with those paid to other public service pensioners, are increased in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Increase Acts. Any change for the Civil Service scheme would have repercussions for other public service schemes; in very broad terms and additional cost of indexing all public service pensions from the ages of 50 to 55 years is likely to be at least £50 million a year. The cost for the Civil Service scheme alone would be some £2½ million. The government have no plans to change the current arrangements.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  National Audit Office (Staff)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission if he will make a statement on the number of staff employed by the NAO. [11705]

  Mr. Sheldon
  The current strength of the National Audit Office is 751 staff. In addition the Office has at present another 98 staff on secondment with other organisations or on maternity leave or career break.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the expected entrance cost to the Millennium Dome at Greenwich; what number of United Kingdom citizens are expected to visit the Millennium Dome during the year 2000; and if he will make a statement. (13275]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is developing a comprehensive pricing structure which will aim to maximise visitor income whilst ensuring that the Experience is accessible to all who wish to visit. The NMEC aims to achieve 12 million visits to the Experience from the UK and overseas.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what measures are in place to ensure that there will be no cost overrun for the public sector or from lottery funds relating to the project to construct the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement. [13276]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company has robust management and financial controls in place which are in line with the terms set by the Millennium Commission for the award of its grant, and in line with conditions set by me as the Shareholder. When the Prime Minister announced the go-ahead for the project on 19 June, it was on the proviso that there would be no extra burden on the public purse over and above the grant-in-aid allocated to English Partnerships for acquisition and preparation of the peninsula site.
  345
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the planned life expectancy of the Millennium Dome at Greenwich; and if he will make a statement. [13277]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Government are currently considering a range of possible, self-financing, uses for the Millennium Experience Dome over the longer term. Its life expectancy will depend on future use and upkeep, with no significant structural refit expected for at least the first 25 years.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what private sector moneys have so far been secured for the Millennium Dome at Greenwich; what proportion of planned private sector moneys this represents; and if he will make a statement; [13274]

  (2) how many private sector sponsorship deals have so far been signed in relation to constructing and running the planned Millennium Dome at Greenwich; and if he will make a statement. [13279]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There is a significant level of interest from potential sponsors and this is expected to be translated into firm commitments in the coming months.

HEALTH

  Erb's Palsy
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence by health authority for each of the last five years of Erb's palsy; and what research into this condition his Department is currently undertaking. [13855]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of completed in-patient treatments of those patients admitted to National Health Service hospitals in England with a primary diagnosis of Erb's palsy for the five years up to 1994–95 has been placed in the Library. The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC does not currently fund any research into Erb's palsy. It has not received any applications for funds to carry out such work. However, a working group under the auspices of the Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy (CESDI) is currently preparing guidance on the management of shoulder dystocia (misplacement of the baby's shoulder in the birth canal) which is considered to be a contributory factor in many cases of Erb's palsy.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14384]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave him on 5 November 1997,Official Report, column 216.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent changes have taken place in the private finance initiative aimed at reducing the financing costs of capital developments. [14106]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since August the National Health Service Executive has been undertaking a review of the process and product of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the NHS. One of their tasks is to make specific recommendations on how the cost of the procurement process under the PFI can be reduced. The results of the review will be announced in early 1998.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made about the future incidence of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [14092]

  Ms Jowell
  On 15 September 1997 the Chief Medical Officer announced the formation of a sub-group of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) with the following remit"To assess the information about the epidemiology of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and develop as far as possible advice on trends in the disease".

  The sub-group will have as an early task an assessment of what information will be needed to make soundly based estimates of the future incidence of the disease. However, on present indications it will be three to four years before they are in a position to do this.

  In the meantime it remains too early to make confident estimates of the likely number of cases.

  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has recently evaluated on the links between Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and new variant CJD. [14094]

  Ms Jowell
  Two research papers were published in Nature on .2 October 1997—"Transmissions to mice indicate that new variant CJD is caused by the BSE agent" by M. E. Bruce and colleagues based at the Neuropathogenesis Unit in Edinburgh and "The same prion strain causes nvCJD and BSE" by A. F. Hill and colleagues based at Imperial College School of Medicine at St. Mary's, London.

  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) considered these findings and concluded that they provide convincing evidence that the agent which causes Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy is the same as that which causes new variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (nvCJD). The Committee also stated that the most likely explanation of the cases of nvCJD to date remains exposure to BSE before the introduction of the Specified Bovine Offals (SBO) ban in 1989.

  SEAC also concluded that the necessary measures to protect public health and animal health are in place and saw no need for any changes in the light of these new findings.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation(a) has been carried out and (b) is planned by his Department of the total cost of health care provided by the NHS for incontinence. [14029]

  Mr. Boateng
  No evaluation of these costs has been carried out and none is planned.

  Specific information on the cost of health care provided by the National Health Service for people with incontinence is not collected centrally and we have no plans to change this. The Department is seeking to reduce the burden of data collection by the NHS and rationalise data flows within the NHS and between the NHS and the centre. The collection of additional information on incontinence would not be in line with this policy.

  Community Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue formal guidance to local authorities so as to ensure that BD8 referrals automatically trigger a full community care assessment by local authorities. [14028]

  Mr. Boateng
  The proposal that BD8s should automatically trigger a full community care assessment by local authorities is made in a recent report by the Royal National Institute for the Blind,A Question of Risk: Community care for older visually impaired people in England and Wales. The department will study the report carefully.

  Health Trusts (Assets)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assets currently in the hands of health trusts are being considered for transfer to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [14075]

  Mr. Milburn
  The value of surplus or redundant assets owned by National Health Service trusts can form part of the negotiations between the trust and the private sector in a Private Finance Initiative deal, but any such assets must be sold or disposed of at open market value.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what time scale the review of assets is being conducted; how much the review is expected to cost; and if he will make a statement. [14105]

  Mr. Milburn
  The next periodic revaluation of National Health Service land and buildings to take place in summer 1999 to allow NHS trusts, health authorities and other NHS bodies to establish accurate fixed asset values as of 31 March 2000. The exercise is expected to cost in the region of £ 2·25 million.

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients he estimates will require NHS treatment in each of the next five years; [14458]

  (2) how many patients he estimates will receive NHS treatment in each of the next five years. [14459]

  Mr. Milburn
  The health service will treat more patients over the next five years. The Government's election manifesto stated that the Government will raise 348
  spending on the National Health Service in real terms every year, and put money towards patient care. The manifesto also made clear our commitment to the historic principle of the NHS:
  "if you are ill or injured there will be a NHS there to help … access will be based on need … not on your ability to pay … or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live".

  We intend to keep to these promises.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients he estimates will be on NHS waiting lists on 30 April 2002. [14460]

  Mr. Milburn
  Despite the dreadful situation we inherited from our predecessors we are committed to having shorter waiting lists by the end of this Parliament.

  National Blood Service
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospitals and (b) NHS trusts have signed their annual contract with the National Blood Service (i) nationally and (ii) in each zone. [14456]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not collected in the form requested. However, details of the number of contracts signed for 1997–98 are as follows:

  Zone

  Number

  London and South East

  110

  Midlands and South West

  21

  Northern

  67

  Total

  198

  A further 22 contracts have been agreed, but not yet signed.

  To address the problems involved in the present arrangements, a working group has been set up to agree a common framework for commissioning and for national prices.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Under-Secretary of State's letter of 22 October, (MR/EE/PSO/14053/97), what interim action he is taking as a result of the Poloniecki study on air pollution. [14462]

  Ms Jowell
  The Poloniecki study on the effects of air pollution on heart disease is currently being considered by the Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP). I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow with the Committee's views as soon as possible.

  As part of the review of the National Air Quality Strategy the effects of carbon monoxide and particles on health will be examined. The Poloniecki study will form part of the research literature that will be considered.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the final report of the group led by the Chief Medical Officer into the provision of emergency services in the community will be published; and if he will make a statement. [14487]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report was published on 19 September this year under the title 'Developing Emergency Services in the Community: The Final report' and was distributed widely within the National Health Service under cover of an Executive Letter, EL(97)46. Copies of the report and the letter have been placed in the Library.

  As part of the implementation programme, the Department of Health is funding telephone immediate care and advice lines to be piloted in three sites from early next year.

  Prescription Charges
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review regulations whereby two or more prescription charges are payable when two or more medicines are prescribed in circumstances where medicines are in one pack and cannot be taken separately. [14698]

  Mr. Milburn
  This and all other aspects of prescription charges are being considered as part of the Department of Health's Comprehensive Spending Review. We aim to complete the review by next spring. The Government remain committed to the historic principle of the National Health Service that health services will be available to all and access will be based on need, not on ability to pay.

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce the appointment of the next chairman of the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust. [14473]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will shortly be considering recommendations for this post. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  NHS Appointments
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what notice he plans to give to NHS trust and health authority members on their reappointment. [14583]

  Mr. Milburn
  We would normally prefer to give advance notice to serving members of National Health Service boards on whether they are to be reappointed. Trust appointments have been delayed this year because of the introduction of new criteria for board membership, and the need to consider new candidates arising from over 350
  1,800 nominations by Members of Parliament and local authorities. Apart from exceptional cases, these appointments will be confirmed very shortly.

  Health Authority Contracts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by health care provider, for each of the last four years, the number of contracts each health authority had in place, indicating how many of these had been referred for arbitration within the NHS region; and how many were left unsigned by(a) the provider and (b) the purchaser at the end of the year to which they applied, or for 1997–98, at the end of October 1997. [14611]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested may be collected at a regional level but it is at the discretion of the regional office and is not authorised or validated centrally.

  Solihull Hospital
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the range of services provided to patients by Solihull Hospital. [13798]

  Mr. Milburn
  The range of services provided by Solihull Hospital is as follows:

  Accident and Emergency services;

  Outpatient Clinics for most specialities;

  Day surgery;

  Maternity services, including Special Care Baby Unit;

  Diagnostic facilities, including a Magnetic Resonance Imaging scanner;

  In-patient wards for emergency and elective admissions;

  Coronary care and intensive therapy units;

  Renal dialysis unit;

  Acute mental health services.

  Paint (Calcium Hydroxide)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to encourage the use of paint containing calcium hydroxide on hospital(a) surfaces, (b) walls and (c) air ducts; and if he will make a statement; [13802]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the benefits of coating hospital surfaces in paint containing calcium hydroxide in relation to the control of Staphylococcus aureus; and if he will make a statement; [13803]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the benefits of coating the insides of hospital air ducts in paint containing calcium hydroxide in relation to the spread of Aspergillus niger; and if he will make a statement. [13804]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health is aware of the advances of technology in paint manufacture. The view of the Department's expert advisers is that wall and floor surfaces in hospitals, in practice, play little part in the transmission of infection, including Staphylococcus aureus. Aspergillus niger is a very uncommon cause of infection in hospitals. The source of such fungal spores is generally outside air.

  Duct coating designed to inactivate suspended microbes will make insufficient contact to produce significant reduction in their numbers.
  351
  Patients with severely reduced immunity, such as bone marrow transplant patients, are particularly prone to A. niger. Units for such patients are generally supplied with air that has passed through High Efficiency Particulate Air filters, tested to British Standard BS3928, located in ductwork. Such filters are highly effective at removing airborne microbial contamination, including spores of A. niger.

  Tissue Research
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national scheme to distribute human tissue unfit for transplant for use in research; and if he will make a statement. [13801]

  Ms Jowell
  The donation of human tissue for research purposes is permitted under the Human Tissue Act 1961. However, if a person (or his/her family) has given permission for organs to be taken for transplantation and 352
  those organs prove unsuitable for transplantation they cannot automatically be used for research purposes. Separate consent must be obtained.

  Psychologists
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation to control the activities of those calling themselves psychologists who have been struck off the Register of Psychologists. [13796]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no current plans to introduce a system of statutory registration of the title psychologists. I recently met with representatives of the British Psychological Society and indicated the Government's intention for officials to work with them to develop a programme of work in order to ensure that existing systems for regulating and promoting good practice are maintained and developed.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Miss Patricia Janet Scotland, QC, having been created Baroness Scotland of Asthal, of Asthal in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and the Lord Steyn.

Lord Freeman
The Right Honourable Roger Norman Freeman, having been created Lord Freeman, of Dingley in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Lane of Horsell and the Lord Parkinson.
Lord Weinstock—Took the Oath.

English Schools: British History Teaching
3.25p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to review the teaching of British history in English schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the teaching of British history in English schools is regularly monitored through Ofsted inspections. Moreover, since 1995, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and its predecessor have been monitoring the implementation in schools of the national curriculum, including history. They will advise the Government next April and we expect that advice to reflect the need for high quality history teaching which stimulates children's curiosity and develops their analytical skills. But, in order to give teachers the stability they have asked for and need, we have undertaken not to change the statutory curriculum for five to 14 year-olds before the year 2000.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she accept and perhaps share my regret that many of the proposals of the 1990 national curriculum working party on history were not implemented because they were not acceptable to the then Conservative Government? Does the Minister also accept that, as it stands, the secondary history
1474
curriculum does not give a coherent sense of British history—or, indeed, European or global history—over the past 250 to 300 years?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, going back to 1990 may not be terribly fruitful. However, I recognise that there was a great deal of conflict at the time that that advisory group undertook its work. It is dangerous for politicians to try to prescribe the content of the curriculum in too much detail, especially the history curriculum. I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord about the present secondary school curriculum. I think that there is a reasonable balance between British history, European history and global history of one kind or another. It is very much up to teachers in secondary schools, in conjunction with parents, governors and others with an interest, to decide exactly what the nature of the secondary curriculum should be after the age of 14.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the term "British history" includes Scottish history?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Question relates to British history and I am absolutely sure that Scottish history is covered by "British history".
Lord Gainford: My Lords, given that nearly all historians differ completely in their opinions and points of view, how will the advisory council decide on the least biased when producing books for schools, so that teaching does not become, as it was in Charles Dickens' Hard Times, a matter of children being taught nothing but facts, facts and facts and never being allowed to ask why?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is extremely important that we do not have a Gradgrind approach to the teaching of history—or any other subject. As far as the teaching of history is concerned, the national curriculum applies only to five to 14 year-olds, because after the age of 14 history is an optional subject. I do not think that the national curriculum should be too prescriptive about which particular books children should read. We should trust our teachers to choose carefully and thoughtfully.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is something to be said for teaching history in primary schools with some sense of the events that took place? No doubt no one any longer expects children to know the dates of the kings of England from William I onwards, but surely there is something to be said for learning about events that have taken place which are sometimes memorable in a comical way, such as the War of Jenkins's Ear.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, any good, creative and imaginative teacher will use every possible device

1475
to encourage curiosity about, and interest in, our past and our history. If the War of Jenkins's Ear is such a device, I would certainly support its use.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that Welsh history is taught as well as Scottish history—and that it goes back to 400 AD?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. However, my noble friend Lord Cledwyn may wish to see the conquest of Edward I played down a little!
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that history lessons should contain something about the success of British colonialism and consequently should contrast that with the unrest that has occurred in those colonial countries that we have left?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord's question illustrates exactly the problem that may arise if we begin to prescribe the history syllabus in too much detail. We shall get into ideological arguments about interpretation which I do not believe are very helpful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, before developing analytical skills in young people, it is absolutely essential that they have knowledge of British history and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has said, that they understand the chronology of history and the glorious past of this country?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the development of analytical skills and the understanding of the chronology of history and particular events go together. They should not be seen as different and separate matters.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am filled with admiration for the way in which she has spoken today? She has displayed very wise judgment. Do the Government agree that the object of the exercise is to make the children being taught inquisitive and interested in the subject? One hopes that children will become interested not only in English, Welsh and Scottish history but also in French history and in what is going on in South Africa, South America and so on. Does the noble Baroness agree that one should not be parochial in the teaching of history, because that is not what history is about?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is important that above all we make young people curious and interested so that they will pursue that interest outside the classroom. A great deal of learning among young people must take place outside the formal teaching that is given in our schools. One can get young people interested in British history, European history, the history of India
1476
and the history of many other parts of the world. What matters is that we teach well and in a way that engages and motivates pupils.

Developing Countries: UK Aid
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwichasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the United Kingdom's commitments to the European Union and to eastern Europe are diverting funds from the bilateral aid programme to developing countries.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, development funds are not being diverted. There is no trade-off. For this year and the next my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed that if total expenditure on development through the EC and certain other multilateral institutions exceeds the planned forecasts, the Government will meet the additional costs from the central reserve. Consequently, the UK's multilateral commitments to the EC and others will not impact on the UK's bilateral aid programme and our objective to eliminate poverty in the poorest countries of the world.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very reassuring reply. But does the noble Lord recognise that there has been widespread concern among aid agencies about the growing proportion of aid that has gone on central and eastern Europe from our bilateral aid programme, while the EU co-operation programme has increased dramatically at the same time? Given that the White Paper refers specifically to a finite commitment to those countries in transition, can the Government give the agencies reassurance that this trend has now decreased?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can. So far as concerns bilateral country programmes, the amount to be spent on eastern and central Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union will decline from this year onwards. For example, the amount that has been spent on Africa has increased over the past three or four years and will continue to increase over the planning period. I do not believe that the noble Lord's anxiety is justified or that eastern and central Europe are squeezing money out of the poorest countries from our bilateral programmes.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that both the current report of the World Bank and the recently published transition report of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development aver that the rule of law, the creation of a civic society and the tackling of extreme inequities in wealth and income are crucial to the economic success of these countries? Can the noble Lord assure the House that the British aid programme will reflect the importance of the political and civic dimension of transition as well as the importance of the creation of fresh and free markets?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, very much so. The direct British contribution to eastern and central Europe has

1477
been built substantially around the know-how fund which is designed for public administration and private business development and professionalism. It is very important that those cadres are developed and that the understanding of democratic and judicial procedures in those countries matches up with that of western Europe as part of the preparation for accession to the European Union. Certainly, that, together with the development of market economies, is central to our relationship with those countries.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I welcome the Government's response to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that they will ensure that the agreement that I gained from the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer will continue under this Government. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Government plan to continue the most successful use of British development funds for small business development? This has benefited eastern and central Europe and it is wanted in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the rest of the world, but I do not see even a reference to it in the White Paper.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we shall continue some of those programmes. As the noble Baroness will be aware from reading the White Paper, there has been a review of all the programmes. The objective is to assess the degree to which they contribute to the elimination of poverty in those countries. The importance of creating effective indigenous business remains part of our development strategy.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the know-how fund's contribution to eastern Europe has not been overgenerous? I refer in particular to the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Further, does the noble Lord agree that any further decline may lead to a loss of confidence in those developing nations and send the wrong signal to Moscow?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not agree that the Government have been ungenerous. One of our major contributions has been that to eastern and central Europe. There is always a possibility that if help from western Europe and other aid organisations to eastern Europe begins to falter or is seen to falter, confidence in the process of democratisation and access to the European Union may itself falter. However, we and our European partners are committed to ensuring that that does not happen. A major feature of the British presidency of the EU is that all countries of eastern and central Europe, whether or not they are in the first wave of accession, should benefit from continued help to develop both their economies and their democracies.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, is there not a case for re-examining the accounting convention by which our payments to the European Development Fund are debited to the Overseas Aid Department? Should this
1478
sum of money not be regarded more in the nature of a subscription to the European Community as we are not able to monitor it as effectively as we would like?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are monitoring procedures within the European Union and we are concerned to improve them. Approximately half of our development expenditure takes place through various forms of bilateral agencies. In the case of the EU, the World Bank and others, the expenditures are mandatory and in that sense the noble Lord is correct. However, they are and will increasingly be subject to scrutiny and audit to ensure that they achieve the objectives that we set out in the White Paper, which we hope apply to EU funds as much as to national funds.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord's right honourable friend said in another place yesterday that she recognised the manifest inefficiency of the European aid effort and intended that this country should do something about it when it has the presidency next year. Will he name one practical, specific improvement that this country intends to make to the European aid effort which will have such an effect, or has he just hand-waving and pious hopes to offer?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are, rightly, some anxieties about parts of the European aid programme. As I said, we intend to improve the audit of its effectiveness. We are working for the greater involvement of British expertise in the management committees and working groups which oversee those programmes. We want more effective contact between UK and Commission experts, and secondment of expert UK staff to the Commission, and collaboration with recipient countries than has sometimes been the case under the European programme. However, that does not justify the claim that EU aid in general is inefficient. There are some concerns, and those will be addressed, as my right honourable friend said.

Share Fishing
3.40 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to encourage and support the system of share fishing now widespread among the larger vessels in the British fishing fleet.
Lord Carter: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the valuable contribution that share fishermen make to the UK fishing industry and the great challenges fishermen face in providing regular supplies of healthy food for the nation. We will continue to take account of share fishermen's unique employment status and recognise that any new working time measures should reflect the special nature of their working practices.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and for the written reply last

1479
week on the European Commission's latest attempt to include British fishermen in its working time restrictions. Will the Government now press upon the Commission that those restrictions are wholly inappropriate for self-employed share fishermen, who, unlike their counterparts in other European fleets, do not have employers, employees or trade unions, and that fishermen's working time is governed by the weather and the fish, which do not observe regular timetables in their habits?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. The European Commission published a White Paper in July in which it dealt with what are called "excluded sectors" from the working time directive, which of course includes fishermen. It is still not clear whether it is proposed to extend working time controls to share fishermen, because, as the noble Lord said, they are different from employed fishermen. It may be helpful to quote from the Commission's White Paper. Under "Criteria for Action", it states:
"The criteria should not place unreasonable burdens on firms, in particular small firms, and should take account of specific characteristics of the sectors such as share fishing".
So the problem is recognised.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if they have not already done so, what steps will the Government take to put an end to the wicked and wasteful practice of discarding fish surplus to the allowable catch?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lady is correct. Her question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but in the reform to the CFP which we propose we are intent to ensure that that problem is dealt with. Perhaps I may make a remark that I have not made before—but the CFP makes the CAP look like a beacon of sweet reason and light.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, may I assume that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is on a fact-finding mission on a fishing vessel so that he can learn, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, that one cannot impose on a fishing fleet the kind of working time directive that one can on land-based organisations? Will the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms assure me that the Government will stand firm with other European member states with large fishing industries against applying that directive to fishing? Will he further assure me that, if that does not succeed, we shall stand firm on the basis that share fishermen are clearly self-employed?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am in fact the departmental Whip for MAFF, as I think he knows, which is why I am answering the Question. The first point about sea fishermen is correct. The working time directive will apply to sea fishermen. It is equally clear that a great deal of negotiation is needed before there is any chance of it being applied to share
1480
fishermen. I quoted the White Paper. We are not the only country concerned, and we are clear about the problems that would be faced were the directive to be applied.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if, as my noble friend said, the CAP is a beacon of light compared with the CFP, would it not be wise and better for us to repatriate the CFP and perhaps also the CAP?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I suppose the first lesson to learn is that one does not try to make a joke in this House. My noble friend and others have suggested that we should withdraw from the CFP. That is wholly unrealistic. We need a common fisheries policy, and co-operation with other member states is essential given the over-capacity of the fishing fleets and the fact that fish do not respect national boundaries. Perhaps I may for once almost agree with my noble friend. With its enlargement the EU will stretch from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to Poland. When Poland joins it will stretch to Russia. I think that some form of subsidiarity for the CAP is almost inevitable.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the main elements behind the working time directive is health and safety? While the directive may not apply to self-employed people or share fishermen, surely there is a need for a public education programme to ensure that those people who may not be covered by the directive recognise the benefits of limiting their working hours.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I am always surprised that when one reads out to employers who are not familiar with it the components of a working time directive, they say that that is what any good employer would do: minimum daily and weekly rest periods; annual paid holidays; a limit of 48 hours on the average time that employees can be required to work in a week, although member states can provide for people to work for more than 48 hours by voluntary agreement; and restrictions on night work.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that safety is of course essential and important, but that on fishing vessels it is achieved by other means and not by a rigid working timetable?
Lord Carter: My Lords, yes.

Meningitis: Student Awareness Programme
3.47 p.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure maximum co-ordination between the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment and the universities to ensure student awareness of risk and response to meningitis.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, perhaps

1481
I may first offer sympathy to those who have been affected by the recent outbreak at the universities, particularly of course to the families of those students who have tragically died. The Government are conscious of the need to keep awareness of meningitis at a high level. That is the best way to prevent serious disease developing. To that end, the Health Education Authority, which is funded by and works with the Department of Health, has produced leaflets and posters targeted especially at students. About 1.2 million fliers and posters have been sent out this term to 724 colleges in England and 41 colleges in Wales. The HEA has named contacts for its meningitis awareness programme in each of those colleges. In addition, the relevant Department of Health senior medical officer is also the DfEE's medical adviser. It has therefore been possible to develop a close working relationship between the staff of both departments with specific responsibility in this area.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full reply, which I am sure gives reassurance to parents and students. I am certain she agrees that it is proper to get meningitis into proper perspective, in that it is a relatively rare disease, but that it is also at a relatively high level of incidence at the moment, particularly in the late teen group. Has her department looked at a wider use of vaccination to combat meningitis? What prospect is there of bringing on new vaccines which are being tested at present?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making the point that this is a relatively rare disease, although nonetheless devastating to those whom it affects. On the question of vaccination, the problem is that the strain (meningitis strain C), which at the moment is affecting students in Southampton, for example, is susceptible to a vaccine only in the very short term. The other strain which is more common (meningitis strain B) is not susceptible at all. In fact, on 3rd November the Department of Health announced a £1 million programme to look further into the two vaccines, because there looked to be some optimistic outcomes with regard to the strain C vaccine.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Ministerial and Other Salaries Act,
Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Act.

Defence Policy
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert) rose to move, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was about to say that it was gratifying to see the number of noble Lords in attendance for the debate and I hope that the sudden flight has not been caused by my appearance at the Dispatch Box. It is extremely gratifying to see the number of noble Lords who have put their names down to contribute to our proceedings. It is a pleasure for me, as a Labour Defence Minister, to be opening a debate on defence policy in this House for the first time in 18 years. Not unnaturally, I do so with a certain amount of trepidation because I am well aware of the depth of experience of former serving officers of the highest rank and others who from direct experience know far more than I will ever know.
It is also a great pleasure to address your Lordships today because the Strategic Defence Review, upon which we are embarked, provides an opportunity for us—the whole country—to consider these matters and for your Lordships openly and fully to debate the key issues which will determine our defence and security policy for the next 20 years. That is the time horizon which we have in mind for the review and it is with that defence review that I shall begin my remarks today.
I wish to emphasise that, contrary to the sceptical voices which understandably one hears from time to time, the review is foreign policy led. We have tried to set out the objectives of Her Majesty's Government and to consider and identify the widest possible consensus on our future security needs and the task for our Armed Forces. Above all, we attach the greatest importance to having a non-partisan approach to defence matters in the life of this Government. That is why we have embarked on a level of consultation which is without precedent in defence reviews of the past. I hope that your Lordships will understand that we see today's debate as forming part of the process of consultation.
We have already held three all-day seminars with both Ministry of Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers present, together with a range of outside experts. We extended invitations to the seminars to all the leading figures in the parties opposite in this House and in another place and we were gratified that other political parties saw fit to make a valuable contribution to the discussions.
We have been discussing Britain's foreign policy objectives, the role of the Armed Forces in meeting those objectives and the planning assumptions on which Britain's future force structures and equipment programmes should be based. The last of the seminars was held yesterday in the Ministry of Defence and was attended by members of the public for the first time. They were invited to participate in the final session. Although we might have been apprehensive about those present having a particular theme which they wanted to pursue, they came forward with high quality questions which, I am delighted to say, set us more work. I set that out in front of your Lordships so that no Member of this House should doubt our desire for the review to he as open, inclusive and comprehensive as possible. I hope that at the end of the process no one will say that I they have not had a chance to contribute to the review.
Last week the Secretary of State set out some of the emerging conclusions from the first stage of the review. I wish to emphasise that this is a continuing process and we are not at the stage of making our minds up finally as regards even that first stage. Your Lordships might be interested to know that, in response to the invitation of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to anyone with good ideas on defence policy to submit them, we have received more than 450 written submissions. A number were received from noble Lords and were distinguished by their thoughtfulness and constructiveness. Some 370 of those contributors gave permission for their contributions to be published. They have now been placed in the Libraries of both Houses where they are available for reference.
We are also consulting with a panel of experts, which includes recently retired officers and officials, experts from the academic community, think-tanks, journalism and the wider business community—indeed, from both sides of the business world. Panel members will provide us with expert opinions and will act as a sounding board for our emerging conclusions.
The policy framework for the review was set out in our manifesto. We promised that we would maintain a strong defence against the security challenges of the post-Cold War era. We made clear that our security must be anchored in NATO. We pledged that we would maintain a minimum credible nuclear deterrent and we stressed the importance of maintaining a healthy defence industry in this country. We firmly believe that the British people are, by inclination, internationalist rather than isolationist. We therefore intend to continue to play a leading role in NATO and the United Nations and the other international organisations to which we belong. Of course, co-operation with the United States, our European partners and allies and like-minded nations will continue to be essential to the security of our country.
Furthermore, we aim to use the superb reputation of our Armed Forces, not just for defence, but as an instrument of influence in a world of collective security and co-operation. It is now nearly 10 years since the end of the Cold War and the removal of what appeared to be a monolithic threat facing the people of western Europe. But, as your Lordships know, during those 10 years many other problems have emerged in different parts of the world. Instability and tensions in Africa, central Asia, south Asia and south-east Asia in particular have the seeds of conflict which could erupt at any time. It is regrettable that in many places fighting still continues. Instability and tensions have been caused by a range of issues, some of which we have seen close to home in our own continent. I shall address the issue of Bosnia later in my remarks.
Over and above the contingent risks to British lives and property, there are certain inescapable commitments which our Armed Forces are required to fulfil; for instance, support to the civil power, particularly in Northern Ireland, and our responsibility towards our remaining 13 dependent territories. In Northern Ireland, we still have 17,000 service men and women in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in maintaining law and
1484
order and in the fight against terrorism. We all hope that recent progress in the political process will lead to a constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland and to a lasting peace. But our Armed Forces will of course continue to perform their task with courage and dedication for as long as the need remains. As events even within the last week have shown, unfortunately their presence is still required for some little time yet.
Within Europe our commitment to collective security through NATO remains at the heart of our defence and security policy. We will continue to contribute to the maintenance of NATO as a politically and militarily effective alliance.
Beyond Europe, the risks to our interests are likely at this time to be greatest in the Gulf and the Mediterranean. We must be ready to respond to support stability in these regions. It is those interests and obligations which should primarily determine the size and shape of our Armed Forces.
However, in addition to those requirements, Britain also has wider security interests which could lead us to contribute to coalition operations and humanitarian operations. Participation in any of those operations will, however, remain a matter for the choice of the government of the day.
We also wish to reach out to the countries of central and eastern Europe and to extend to the newly emerging democracies the security which we have so long enjoyed in the West. We are looking for new ways to engage with our former adversaries, many of which will involve a positive role for our Armed Forces.
The Secretary of State is anxious to involve officers of our Armed Forces as defence diplomats around the world. He has only just returned from an extremely successful visit to Moscow. I am delighted to tell the House that virtually everything that he suggested by way of confidence-building measures and exchange of visits between officers of all three services on both sides were greeted with an extremely warm reception. He was delighted with that and we hope to build on that in the months ahead.
We are now at the stage of the review at which we are considering what resources, assets and force structures we shall need in future to meet those broad aims. Part of that task will be considering what we must do to fill a number of gaps which already exist. We shall have to make some major decisions; for example, as to the future of our airlift capability, whether we go for a further generation of aircraft carriers and, if so, how many, how big and what shape those aircraft carriers will be. We are now starting to work on those questions and they will come to Ministers for review in the weeks ahead.
As your Lordships will know, this country has already received a substantial peace dividend since the end of the Cold War. Since the mid-1980s, defence expenditure in the United Kingdom has fallen by 29 per cent. in real terms and now stands at 2.7 per cent. of our GDP, which your Lordships may be surprised to know is the lowest level since the mid-1930s.
Since 1990, the strength of the Armed Forces has been reduced by about one-third; that means that in total some 100,000 men and women have left. That has been matched by a similar reduction in equipment levels. However, I must tell your Lordships that, while the reductions in the front line were justified by the change in the strategic setting, cuts elsewhere have left our Armed Forces with serious problems in relation to maintainability, particularly in the tri-service support area of equipment, including the availability of key spares and ammunition. In future, we must pay more attention to sustainability. Never again, I hope, shall we find ourselves in the position in which we were at the beginning of the conflict in the Gulf when we had to cannibalise tanks and planes in western Europe in order to keep a force of relatively modest size fully operational in the Gulf. I hope that never again shall we have to go cap in hand around western Europe to beg ammunition from our allies because our stocks were inadequate.
As I mentioned, of equal concern is the shortage in manpower throughout the Armed Forces: the Army is under strength by well over 4,000 soldiers; the Royal Navy is undermanned by around 1,500 personnel on its trained strength; and the Royal Air Force by around 3,000 personnel.
Coupled with our increased operational commitments since the end of the Cold War, that has resulted in severe overstretch in many areas of our forces. We are determined to do all we can to improve that situation. We are making strenuous efforts to improve recruitment and retention—I want to place great emphasis on the retention factor—and the opportunities we offer to those who choose to serve their country.
Above all, we wish to ensure that we recruit from the widest possible cross-section of our society. To that end, we have already introduced initiatives to improve access to the Armed Forces for members of the ethnic minorities. As I explained in your Lordships' House recently, talks have taken place with local authority officials in Newham, East London, and the Borough of Sandwell in the West Midlands to examine how best to introduce recruiting drives in these areas. In addition, last month the Chief of the General Staff launched the Army's equal opportunities strategy which contains action plans to remove discrimination, sharpen awareness of equal opportunities issues within the Army and increase the number of Army recruits from the ethnic minority population. The other services are equally active in that direction and are extremely anxious also to increase their recruitment from the ethnic communities.
Last week in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that the opportunities for women in the Army would be expanded to enable them to serve in all posts in the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers from 1st April 1998. That will increase the percentage of Regular Army posts open to women from 47 per cent. to 70 per cent. Work is continuing to see whether opportunities for women across the Armed Forces can be expanded still further.
As your Lordships know, our Armed Forces are among the best in the world and they cope extremely well with the demands we place upon them. Wherever they serve, from Northern Ireland to Iraq, from Bosnia to the Falklands, they are held in the highest respect for the professionalism and initiative that they display.
The Government take seriously their obligation to those who have served their country in this way and who are continuing to serve. That is why we have put a high priority on addressing the health concerns of Gulf veterans. Noble Lords will be aware that we have recently doubled the financial resources allocated to dealing with this issue, speeded up the Medical Assessment Programme and extended the programme of medical research. Alas, we do not yet have a solution to the problems which lie behind those illnesses. Nor, for that matter, does the United States, which is able to bring to bear, and has in fact done so, much greater resources on those matters. However, we are determined to be as open as possible with the country on those difficulties.
To that end, we published last week two documents giving detailed information about matters of concern to Gulf veterans. The first was a paper setting out the background to the use of medical countermeasures—vaccines and nerve agent pretreatment (NAPS) tablets—to protect British troops during the Gulf War. The second was a memorandum explaining how Parliament came to be misled about the use of organophosphate pesticides by British forces in that conflict. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House. Until recently we have tended to concentrate on the sad past of these events and we are now looking to the future to ascertain what we can do to help those Gulf veterans who are ill. The House has taken a close interest in the matter and will no doubt continue to do so.
I turn now to equipment issues. There is no doubt that in the sphere of equipment procurement we need to do better. We need to eliminate the cost overruns and delays which have characterised all too many equipment projects in the past. My right honourable friend's "smart procurement" initiative seeks to deliver improvements in performance: faster, cheaper and better defence procurement than heretofore. We have been involved in extensive consultations through the National Defence Industries Council to that end. I am delighted to say that industry is responding enthusiastically to the initiatives that we are starting to take. Above all, we hope to involve industry in the concept phase of new systems that we need to procure; in other words, we will not be going to industry and saying, "This is the sort of frigate (or the sort of aircraft) that we want to have; you build it for us as quickly, cheaply and reliably as possible". We are saying to industry, "These are the tasks that the services will need to perform. We want you to help us to devise the pieces of kit which will be efficient, reliable, cheap and on time to the advantage of both industry and the Ministry of Defence".
As I said, industry has responded extremely enthusiastically to our initiatives in that way. Industry has proved that it can adapt and meet new challenges. Indeed, its export achievements are quite remarkable.

1487
Your Lordships may not realise it, but the British defence industry obtained nearly one-quarter of the world defence export market last year. But to maintain that position British products must be capable, innovative and reasonably priced. When they are all of these they will have the full and energetic support of Her Majesty's Ministers in trying to achieve the export markets that they seek.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the substantial investments that the British defence industry has made in advanced technologies, and also the investment made by the Ministry of Defence in the area, are not wasted. We wish to spread the technological processes and skills developed for defence into new civil markets through a defence diversification agency. Such links will strengthen the industrial base of this country and contribute towards improving the country's overall economic performance. We hope to publish a Green Paper on these matters before Christmas. I trust that all noble Lords who have an interest in the subject will contribute to the consultation exercise which will then follow.
Our search for greater efficiency in all areas of defence spending is also essential, not only to achieve value for money for the taxpayer, but also to free up resources to enable us to tackle the capability and equipment problems faced by our Armed Forces. We simply must improve efficiency and release surplus assets to that end. Even so, however successful we are, we shall find ourselves making hard choices about the priorities that we will have to choose.
In the six months since this Government came into office we like to think that we have achieved a fair amount in the defence and security field. We have fulfilled our commitment to maintain Trident to provide a minimum, but credible, nuclear deterrent which will continue to underpin our collective security. We aim to develop the stability in which we can take forward our commitment to global nuclear disarmament. We have kept our promise to ban the export, import, transfer and manufacture of anti-personnel landmines and have announced a five-point plan to increase the contribution that the Army makes to humanitarian demining. We are taking forward our proposals on defence diversification.
We have also demonstrated the importance that we attach to the men and women of our Armed Forces at all stages in their service careers. Our recruiting initiatives for ethnic minorities, our expansion of the opportunities for women in the Army and our efforts to find answers to the serious problems faced by some Gulf War veterans are all examples of practical action that we have taken.
It is the men and women of our Armed Forces and the civilians and civil servants who support them who put our defence and security policies into effect. We owe it to them and to the people of this country to provide a clear sense of direction for defence into the next century. That is a major aim of the Strategic Defence Review and through it we will work to
1488
achieve our goal: a strong defence for the United Kingdom, based on the broadest possible consensus of its citizens.
Moved, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.—(Lord Gilbert.)
4.15 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying how much I welcome today's important debate. I should, first, declare an interest in that I am an adviser to a French aerospace company and a director of a British engineering company, neither of which have significant defence business so far as I know. I should also like to say how much I am looking forward to hearing the two maiden speeches later this afternoon. I had the privilege of knowing both the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Inge, and the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, in another incarnation. I am particularly pleased that we have another opportunity to discuss defence matters following our debate on the Armed Forces in July and at a time when the Government's defence review is now well and truly underway.
I should like to mention two points upon which the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, touched in his opening remarks. He talked about the new employment of concepts in developing defence procurement policy. I welcome that; indeed, it sounds to me to be a very sensible approach. However, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that it is not the first time that we have attempted to employ such techniques. In my own time, we used to develop what was called the "cardinal points principle", which was very much the same as that which the noble Lord described this afternoon. I believe that it works well when industry can be persuaded to respond effectively to that approach. I wish the noble Lord well in the policy that he has declared and hope that it works.
The Minister also referred to the success of our defence export business. Again, I very much welcome the words of support which he offered to that industry. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me saying that those sentiments were not always echoed by him and his colleagues when they were in opposition and when a number of important defence export related matters came to public notice.
However, there are two issues upon which I should now like to concentrate my remarks. The first relates to the defence review to which the noble Lord referred. I have never been wholly certain about the true reason for this review. There was some surprise when it was announced, rather hastily after the Government came to office earlier this year, during the Easter Recess when Parliament was not sitting. I have not been alone in my belief that the review would inevitably be dictated by the wishes of the Treasury to find savings. Indeed, the noble Lord acknowledged that fact back in July when he gave your Lordships the reassurance that, while the Treasury would probably try to get involved—I believe that that is what he said—it would be up to defence Ministers to justify the present resources that the country devotes to its own defence. The noble Lord announced today how that proportion of our GDP is now declining. The noble Lord may recall telling your Lordships, on

1489
2nd July (at col. 285 of Hansard) that he hoped that Ministers would have "little difficulty" in so persuading their Treasury colleagues. I hope that he succeeds.
The noble Lord's right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, told another place last week that the Government had listened to the views of many people in the past five-and-a-half months. Again, the noble Lord referred to that fact when he spoke earlier. As his right honourable friend said the other day:
"All the options will he given careful consideration, to see what is in the best interests of the effectiveness of our armed forces and what is required for our country".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/97; col. 612.]
Those were welcome words. But the omens are not very good. With the help of hindsight, we now know that defence Ministers have not been wholly successful in fighting off the Treasury. The "iron grip" of the Chancellor—if that is the way to describe it—has so far won the day, at least on a couple of occasions. That is a worrying development.
We have some right to be concerned because history has shown that the people in the Treasury are not always the best people to ask to evaluate our future strategic and security arrangements. It is now no secret that the Government view the Ministry of Defence as an easy target when making defence cuts. The first blow came when the Chancellor boldly announced that a fine of £168 million had been imposed on the Ministry of Defence to find money for the health service. That early announcement involved the Chancellor of the Exchequer—but not, surprisingly, the Defence Secretary—saying that the Government were diverting resources from the defence budget into the National Health Service.
More recently we have heard that the costs of the Bosnia operation may in future have to be met from the defence budget, having hitherto been met from the central reserve. That is another £200 million or so a year, but I gather that that has not yet been finally decided. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will at least be able to resist that, and that he will tell us so when he replies to the debate.
At this point I wish to refer to our own independent nuclear deterrent. As your Lordships know, this is now represented by our fleet of Trident submarines. The fourth vessel has been ordered and will be delivered in due course. I cannot overstate the importance of our independent nuclear deterrent. While it is, of course, primarily assigned to NATO, we have always reserved the right and the ability to use it for our own purposes when our supreme national interest so required. It is that national independence which so adds to its effectiveness as a deterrent by adding to the uncertainties in the mind of any potential enemies in anticipating our likely response to an attack. The aggressor knows that we, on our own, are in a position to inflict unacceptable damage should we be the victims of an attack. Indeed it is often said, and, I believe, rightly, that our position at the top table of world affairs, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council—what my noble friend Lord Hurd has described as our ability to punch above our weight—is due, in no small measure, to our nuclear status.
1490
In that context, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to assure us in the plainest terms that there is no question of any reduction or downgrading in the size or effectiveness of our Trident fleet as regards the current defence review. Can the noble Lord specifically confirm that all four submarines will be fully commissioned and, as was the case with Polaris—continuously for more than 30 years—that there will be one submarine on patrol seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year, for as far ahead as we can foresee? There have been disquieting rumours in that regard which I hope the noble Lord can dispel.
I wish to touch briefly on the work of the cadet organisations. I am vice chairman of the Army Cadet Force. In the previous Parliament much appreciation was expressed on both sides of the House for the work of all three cadet organisations. There was indeed a wish that their work could be extended in view of the important part which they played not only in developing team working and public spiritedness in our youth but also because they are an important recruiting ground for our Armed Forces.
I have seen at first hand the involvement of the ACF and the ATC at many important national functions. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm the wholehearted support of the Government to maintain and, I hope, to build upon the services' involvement in the cadet organisations which work so uniquely in harmony with civilian-funded organisations. The ATC in particular is especially sensitive to "salami slicing", as it is called, because of the comparatively high cost of providing sufficient flying time for cadets, which forms such a vital part of their activity. I hope that the recent cuts in that activity can be restored as soon as practicable. Can the noble Lord give an assurance about the general level of funding for cadet organisations and the ACF in particular?
I wish to touch on another important point which your Lordships dwelt upon at the end of the previous Session of Parliament before we rose for the Recess, and that is the case of Guardsmen Wright and Fisher, two soldiers who were on duty in Northern Ireland and who were tried and convicted of murder in somewhat unusual circumstances and who remain in prison. Many of us feel that that is wholly inappropriate. I know that their case was recently considered again by the Parole Board in Northern Ireland and I imagine that advice is now upon the desk of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Will the noble Lord please tell us what the latest position is and when we can now expect those two soldiers to be released, as we all believe would be appropriate?
This debate is taking place today in the context of the defence review which the noble Lord described in some detail. I have to tell him that I think that the jury is still out on whether that will be an effective and satisfactory process. Some of us are rather concerned. The noble Lord has gone a little way to reassure us, but perhaps not the whole way. Perhaps he can go further when he replies to the debate later this evening.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I am grateful for your indulgence. In the short time that I have been a Member of this place I have been struck by the breadth of knowledge and quality of debate. After such a short time in the learning and listening mode, I am therefore wary about speaking on any subject.
However, your Lordships will realise the Armed Forces are deeply interested in the strategic defence review. I hope your Lordships will allow me, as a previous chief of the defence staff, to make a few general and, I hope, helpful remarks.
First, I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Defence has made it clear that the review will be an open one and will involve wide consultation. I am even more glad that it has been made clear that our Armed Forces will retain the capability to take part in high intensity conflict. This is a critical issue and one that must not be fudged. It has been stated many times in this place that it is easy to move down the operational scale of conflict to low intensity or peacekeeping operations if—I stress the word "if'—you have a high intensity capability. However, if you lose the high intensity capability—that is, the ability to go to war and fight and win, as we did in the Falklands and the Gulf—it takes years and years to get it back in terms of equipment, training and expertise, and it will cost a great deal of money.
In addition, many conflicts have a nasty habit of starting at the low intensity end and escalating to high intensity conflict. We need to recognise that if we do not have a high intensity capability our sailors, soldiers and airmen will be placed at greater personal risk. When we come to consider the strategic defence review I believe it will be important for us to analyse what we mean by high intensity conflict and to be clear about what capabilities we need. It is easy to say the words "high intensity conflict" but it is much, much more difficult to analyse what they mean. I hope I may suggest what I believe are some important pegs on which to hang that capability.
First, we need to recruit and to retain—I stress the word "retain"—top quality servicemen and women. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said in that respect. It was the great Field Marshal Lord Slim, my hero and, of course, the father of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who, when asked to speak by the BBC about the greatest soldier he had known in a series entitled "The Mark of Greatness", said,
"Any nation now and then may throw up a great man but unless its people have greatness in them it will not cut a very noble figure at the bar of history. An army must have Generals to lead it but, if the only men in it who have the mark of greatness are the Generals it will win few victories".
I am convinced that that applies to all our servicemen today.
In that connection, I welcome what has been said in the other place about overstretch and manning problems. I await with interest to hear what the solutions of those problems might be.
1492
The second peg is the capability, the quality and the technology of the three fighting services' forward equipment programme. It will be expensive but it is fundamentally important.
The third peg is endurance and sustainability. The Minister said a number of words about that. It is about operational logistic support, the rotation of units and individuals and reinforcements. The question we have to ask ourselves is: have we the capability to support and sustain operations in different parts of the world for longer periods than we anticipated under Options for Change? Understandably, after the cold war we made some assumptions which, with the benefit of hindsight, have not turned out to be quite as we anticipated. Here I am sure some rethinking is necessary, not least in the critical area of medical support.
As regards training, your Lordships will recognise that training and education are vital in any walk of life. In the Armed Forces, they are even more critical. But they cost money, and we need to ensure that we have allowed adequate provision in terms of time, training areas and money. Training covers a very wide spectrum from schools of excellence like the staff college to sophisticated and complex all-arms combined exercises. If we lose our training edge, we shall be increasing the chances of operational failure.
My next peg is readiness. Holding armed forces at high degrees of readiness costs money, is demanding for the individuals and families involved, and impacts on training, operational logistic support and equipment availability. The end of the cold war allowed us to reduce some states of readiness, but I believe that we should be wary of reducing them too far. The experience of the Falklands, the Gulf War and elsewhere is to expect the unexpected and to expect it at short notice.
My next peg is the need to give our servicemen and women a reasonably balanced and stable quality of life. I am not talking about pay, conditions of service or housing, critically important although those are. I am talking about getting a better balance between time on training, time on operations and time with families and friends.
My last but one peg is difficult to talk about. I wish, however, to try to talk about ethos. I believe that it is fundamentally important to armed forces; and we need to understand it. It is the spirit which motivates armed forces and makes men and women put their lives at risk. It is certainly not a policy; nor is it a science. It is a mixture of emotional, intellectual and moral values. It is about comradeship and team spirit. It is about integrity. And it is about the high quality of people one is fortunate enough to work and serve with.
It is also about tradition. But let me make it absolutely clear that I am not talking about the sort of tradition that means that you never do something new or for the first time. Nor is it about tradition that smacks of bigotry or racism. But if you regard tradition as a standard of conduct handed down to you and below which you try never to fall, then I believe tradition, instead of unsettling or annoying you, will be a handrail to steady and guide you when the going gets rough. I think that tradition is also about recognising the importance that

1493
human beings attach to a sense of continuity, familiarity and pride in the institution in which they live and work. I happen to believe that the institution in which I was so lucky to serve is one of the great institutions of our nation.
My final peg is stability. I know that we live in a world of constant change and that we must always be looking for improvement. But the manner in which the Armed Forces have adapted over the past 40 years or so has been remarkable. They have met with great humour and effectiveness a wide variety of challenges. However, I sense strongly that after the strategic defence review they need to be left alone. To have total stability is not possible, but some of the upheavals following Options for Change and Frontline First/The Defence Cost Studies are still to be completed. I know that a number of noble Lords have visited front line units and will have been impressed by their sense of purpose, professionalism and spirit. What I would call short term morale is extremely high. But what one might call long term morale is not so good: it is a little shaky. The coming generation worry about the future. That is why they need to feel that they will have a more stable base on which to take their life forward.
When the Secretary of State for Defence spoke at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies he quoted from General Hackett's Profession of Arms. He said:
"What a society gets in its Armed Forces is exactly what it asks for, no more and no less. What it asks for tends to be a reflection of what it is. When a country looks at its fighting forces, it is looking in a mirror; if the mirror is a true one, the face that it sees will be its own".
I fully endorse that sentiment. However, I would add that in the same book—I have to quote from memory—General Hackett also said:
"In a democracy it is the duty of armed forces, to furnish to a democratically elected government, in operational situations where force of arms is or is likely to be used, the greatest number of possible options for action".
A government will be given as many options as they are prepared to pay for. The better the quality of the Armed Forces, the greater the strength and scope of those Armed Forces, the better their equipment, leadership and training, then the greater will be the number of options that are open to that government for their use. My Lords, you get what you pay for.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his excellent maiden speech, especially as some years ago I was one of his four subordinate commanders when he was Commander-in-Chief, British Army of the Rhine. It would be wise to reflect very carefully on his words of wisdom if this country is to continue to have the finest Armed Forces in the world and to ensure that those men and women retain the will and courage to win battles in the defence of our freedom. For, rest assured, without our insurance policy of possessing the appropriate numbers of well trained and properly equipped Armed Forces, the freedom of the British people is put at risk.
1494
The noble and gallant Lord has had a most distinguished military career. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that his knowledge and experience will add to the wisdom of your Lordships' House. We very much look forward to his contribution in the future.
I thank the Minister for instituting today's debate. I take the opportunity to thank him also for the detailed and courteous reply he sent me after I submitted a paper on the strategic defence review on behalf of the All-Party Defence Study Group.
The debate is about defence policy and I shall concentrate on that aspect; however, I shall also touch on some other important subjects to be addressed by the strategic defence review in the second phase of its deliberations. I understand that our foreign policy will be based around the protection of the United Kingdom, her dependent territories and the 10 million United Kingdom people abroad. A leading role will be taken in NATO and the United Nations. An isolationist policy is rejected. Our policy will continue to be an internationalist one facing threats to British interests overseas and ensuring the protection of our world-wide trade; it will continue the transatlantic link which is vital to us; and it will oppose international and national terrorism which exists in Northern Ireland. We shall also pay special attention to matters in the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the Gulf.
If this is somewhere near our foreign policy base lines, our defence policy should be formulated along the lines of the already agreed retention of Trident, our nuclear deterrent. However, I am concerned—we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Trefgarne about this—that some people think that it will no longer be necessary to have a Trident on patrol. I argue with some strength that Trident not on patrol and alongside in Faslane can in no way be considered a form of deterrent. Furthermore, to start patrolling again in times of tension might be seen by the world as escalating some international crisis.
We shall require our Armed Forces to support the civil community in Northern Ireland in the fight against terrorism. To continue to have a leading role and to be able to influence NATO, we need to retain the post of Deputy Supreme Allied Commander (Europe) and the Commander of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps which will be achieved if we retain the 1st Armoured Division in Germany. All services must be trained in high intensity conflict to develop a natural war-fighting capability. If we wish to keep our seat on the United Nations Security Council, we must deploy forces to take part in peacekeeping, peace support and peace enforcement operations.
It is essential that we have rapid reaction forces such as the Joint Rapid Deployment Force for United Nations and NATO operations. We must protect our interests in Europe, the Middle East, the Gulf and the Mediterranean and safeguard our wider security interests by contributions to our allies in coalition operations and humanitarian missions.
It will not be possible to carry out these policies unless our defence forces are recruited up to their establishments. They must continue to be properly

1495
trained and be equipped with the most up-to-date and highly technical weapon systems. Third world countries have been buying very sophisticated weapon systems and it would be highly dangerous and irresponsible to deploy our Armed Forces with out-of-date equipment. They must be well paid and well housed; receive the appropriate allowances whenever they are entitled to them; and enjoy the stability and reduced overstretch which will provide a better quality of life.
If our future foreign and defence policies are as I have described them, there is one abundantly clear deduction. It is that there cannot be one single penny cut from the defence budget. Our Armed Forces are desperately overstretched and any further budgetary cuts will result in a reduction to our commitments. The Prime Minister has promised to leave the defence budget as it was set by the last government for a period of two years from the time he took office. I do not wish to become involved in the issue of the recent £169 million so-called "fine" levied on the MoD by the Treasury for an MoD overspend last year. But it is categorically important that the Minister should reassure your Lordships that the Prime Minister intends to keep to his word and that there will be no cuts to the defence budget over the next 18 months. In this I include the central reserves continuing to pay for our commitment to Bosnia as those costs are not, so far as I am aware, part of the defence budget.
There is no time to get involved in military capabilities, except to emphasise once again that the vital need to have a war-fighting capability based on high intensity conflict with sophisticated weapon systems continues to be essential, especially when the lead times for new weapons is around 15 years and particularly as Russia, China, central Asia, the Gulf, the Middle East and north Africa are all in such a delicate and fragile state. Surely we have learnt a lesson that an ill-equipped force such as the United Nations Protection Force does not achieve its missions whereas the Intervention Force and the Stabilisation Force, equipped with tanks, artillery, attack helicopters, armoured infantry and combat aircraft, achieve theirs. It takes years to train for, and be successful in, high intensity conflict and yet only months to train as peacekeepers. In view of the multiplicity of weapons on the international arms market, our Armed Forces will have to face up to sophisticated and lethal weapon systems even in small regional disputes.
I respectfully remind your Lordships that among our NATO allies and any future coalition partners, it is only the United Kingdom and the United States of America who have any real war-fighting capability and carry out realistic training. To deter a crisis requires rapid deployment with strong all arms and well balanced combat forces. Anything else will fail.
I turn to some matters of particular significance to the Armed Forces. My first point relates to states of readiness. Although not needed at anything like the intensity of the cold war period, there is still a reasonable degree of readiness required. With the much reduced numbers of regiments, brigades and divisions, too high degrees of readiness can reduce training and bring about skill fade.
1496
If this is to be overcome in the Army, there should be a two-divisional structure, each division consisting of three brigades. This would continue to allow the deployment of one division to Germany and one division in the United Kingdom, both complementary to each other, each brigade operating on a three-year cycle covering a year of training, a year of operations in its priority role and at high readiness, and a year operating in a supportive role, in reserve and available for out-of-role commitments such as an armoured or artillery regiment deployed out of role to the United Nations forces in Cyprus or to Northern Ireland. To achieve that will require an establishment of nine armoured regiments, two in each of the three brigades in Germany and one in each of the three brigades in the United Kingdom.
The tank is essential on the battlefield for at least the next 10 years and, as I pointed out in my recent paper to the strategic defence review, the 38 Tank Regiment is flawed and should be replaced by the 42 Tank Regiment which would provide three squadrons of 14 tanks each. This radical change can be implemented through the process known as "whole fleet management" which has the advantage of using a smaller number of total tanks combined with the use of simulators such as precision gunnery training equipments.
We live in highly volatile, dangerous and uncertain times. If our states of readiness and reaction times are to be correct, our military and political intelligence must be flawless. The importance of collecting, assessing and disseminating intelligence concerning potential threats to the United Kingdom is a vital ingredient in providing warning times and future intentions of the enemy. Those essential assessments should allow the Government early response time and, if required, immediate and decisive action. The Defence Intelligence Staff and all the other agencies outside the Ministry of Defence must be given the resources to provide modern and sophisticated systems for intelligence data collecting.
I now turn to our reserve forces. Our volunteer and reserve forces are a relatively inexpensive insurance policy against the unexpected and usefully fill specialist posts which may not normally be required in peacetime. Their roles have been widened and they are filling gaps in the regular forces, especially in Bosnia. What better example can I quote than the fact that my noble friend Lord Attlee is at this very moment serving with his TA regiment in Bosnia for six months? I am sure that all your Lordships will join with me when I wish him and all our reserve and regular forces good fortune in their operational deployments. The TA and reserves keep alive our heritage of martial spirit, the ethos of volunteer service and strands of organisation and discipline within the fabric of our society. This, together with unit and national loyalty, is a focus for respect for defence and a valuable element in the national character. Their value to the nation goes well beyond their short-term usefulness and any cuts to the TA and reserves would be a false economy.
For well over a year, the All-Party Defence Study Group has taken a particular interest in the Defence Medical Services. I am grateful to the Minister for the Armed Forces for keeping us informed on Defence Secondary Care Agency matters. It will come as no

1497
surprise to your Lordships that the defence study group recommended in its submission to the strategic defence review that the three remaining service hospitals should revert to the control of the surgeon general on a tri-service basis. It also proposed that the three remaining Ministry of Defence hospital units should be placed under single service control, although staffed similarly on a tri-service system. This would have the advantage of saving the majority of the £2.27 million running costs caused in the main by staff costs. I now understand that changes in the National Health Service structures and clinical practices will leave the Defence Secondary Care Agency in its present form unable to attract the number of patients and case mix to allow military clinicians to retain and develop their skills and maintain their professional accreditation. A review has been set up to advise on the way ahead. It is still our strongly held view that the overall control of the service hospitals and the future of the Ministry of Defence hospital units, in whatever form they end up, should all be put back under service control. I hope that the three single service medical directors are consulted on that issue and are invited to submit their plans and proposals as to how they would like secondary care organised for the future.
The last government implemented Options for Change and the Defence Costs Study which involved severe reductions and reorganisation in all three services. Their strength was cut by 100,000. The infantry battalions were reduced from 55 to 40; tanks from 699 to 304; frigates from 48 to 35; submarines from 28 to 12 and fighters and bombers from 630 to 500. It is not as though the last government took no action to reduce our Armed Forces after the cold war; if anything, their cuts were too severe. However, let it be clearly understood that if the United Kingdom wishes to continue to play a leading role in the world by retaining our seat at the Security Council, by leading in NATO and by being a force of good in the world, neither our Armed Forces nor our commitments can be cut any further. There is simply no room for any more manoeuvre and unless steps are taken to reduce overstretch, morale will plummet, retention will fail and recruits will not he forthcoming to join the services.
There is only one area that may produce savings; that is, through the procurement executive adopting different procedures along the lines of industry, as the Minister said earlier. If the United Kingdom is to carry out a planned future defence policy and our equipment programme is to remain the same, there can be no reduction in the defence budget.
I should also like to add a tribute to our magnificent Armed Forces. They frequently face danger with the utmost courage. They set a shining example to us all and are more than worthy of our greatest respect, which the nation will be showing them on this Remembrance Sunday. We owe each of them a great debt of gratitude. The country is justly proud of having such professional and highly skilled Armed Forces.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the kindness and generosity they have shown in welcoming a newcomer. I have been most grateful for it.
1498
I believe that there is, on all sides of this House, strong support and admiration for our Armed Forces, their extraordinary professionalism and military skill, and the courage and sacrifice they have displayed in numerous crises since the war. I am conscious how many Members of the House have served with immense distinction in our Armed Forces, and none more so than the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. I should like to say how strongly I agree with everything he said.
From the vantage point of 30 years in the Foreign Service I have been well placed to witness the enormous contribution the Armed Forces have made, and continue to make, to this country's influence and reputation. In Rhodesia we saw the British Army play a crucial part in bringing an end to a war which had already claimed 30,000 lives.
In the Falklands we witnessed our Armed Forces accomplishing a militarily exceptionally difficult task, operating 3,000 miles from their nearest base with no adequate cover against numerically superior forces. In those most difficult circumstances a remarkable victory was won. In the Gulf War the consequences for the NATO Alliance if this country had not been prepared to join the United States in sharing the military risks of that venture do not bear thinking about. In that conflict too our forces covered themselves with glory.
Nor would there be any peace in Sarajevo today but for the efforts of the British military contingent in Bosnia. I need hardly mention the enormous contribution the Armed Forces have made to peace and stability in Northern Ireland and the central role we continue to play in NATO. Those have been the accomplishments of our Armed Forces over the past 20 years and we are all rightly proud of them.
Those forces appear to me today to be more than ever in need of your Lordships' support. The collapse of the Soviet Union enabled us substantially to reduce defence expenditure, and rightly so. But, as my noble friend made clear, our forces today are a fraction of their former size. The total infantry strength of the British Army, excluding the territorial forces, is 25,000; the British Army will soon have fewer than 400 tanks. The US Marine Corps alone today has more planes than the RAF, more ships than the Royal Navy and more men than the British Army. Against that backdrop of slender resources and large commitments, the case for a defence review seems to me to be unanswerable.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my noble friend made clear that this is not to be another cost-cutting exercise. It is a foreign policy review and its purpose is to determine how resources can be applied most effectively. It is extremely important that that should remain so for it is surely self-evident that, without a follow-on force in Bosnia, to which we will need to make a continuing substantial contribution, we should soon see a return to anarchy in the former Yugoslavia. I was glad to see the recognition yesterday by the US Secretary of State that US forces also will have to stay in Bosnia.
We all hope that current negotiations will lead to a permanent ceasefire in Northern Ireland; but, sadly, we cannot count on it. There are other threats this country

1499
faces, including the evident determination of the regime in Iran to become a military nuclear power. We shall have a vital role to play in the expansion of NATO to the new democracies in Eastern Europe and in the efforts which are being made to strengthen European defence co-operation. The Government are concerned, and rightly so, to re-establish a leadership role for this country in Europe. Our Armed Forces are the most admired in Europe. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is of the highest importance that they should remain so.
My noble friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, throughout his career, has shown himself to be a staunch defender of the Armed Forces. I share his enthusiasm for conservation and know that we can count on him to help ensure that the British infantrymen and cavalrymen do not themselves become an endangered species. I am confident that the services will continue to receive the support they deserve, both from this House and from the Government, for I am convinced that we are united in our determination to maintain the morale and excellence of our Armed Forces.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is not only a privilege but indeed a pleasure to be able, on your Lordships' behalf, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, on his erudite and interesting maiden speech, which was so relevant to this debate. That may reflect some "cousinage" with a fellow director of Robert Fleming, General Sir Peter de la Billiére. The noble Lord's long and distinguished experience at the Foreign Office, later the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, culminating as our Ambassador in Washington, is now at the disposal of your Lordships' House as the doughtiest of defenders of our Armed Forces. We shall all much look forward to the noble Lord's contributions to our debates as often as he is able to attend.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, for introducing this debate and the open manner in which he did so. At this stage of a long debate, with so many distinguished speakers, it is hardly appropriate that a post-war senior subaltern in the Reserve should speak for long. However, I wish to welcome the process of consultation on the Strategic Defence Review, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. Nevertheless, it is difficult for the relatively uninitiated such as I to enter upon any constructive debate without having read it. The declaration as to policy is also very welcome. The interests and obligations are indeed well conceived and I think it is a new approach to procurement—I stand open to correction if it is not; but as it was explained, it is surely a well founded innovation.
However, certain assurances are indeed sought, for the reasons advanced in particular by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Is defence of the realm the overriding priority of this Government? Was that defence budget settled to meet foreseeable defence requirements in weaponry, manpower, training and education, as referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge?
1500
Was this as envisaged at page 38 of the Labour manifesto as a broad defence commitment? Was that in relation to foreseeable and foreseen commitments? Were the unforeseeable requirements to be met from the central or contingency reserve, whatever one calls it, referred to by my noble friend Lord Vivian a moment ago? Is the overriding priority as reflected in the Labour manifesto put to hazard in any way by the proposed massive depletion in funding, and, if not, why not so, if there is a depletion in funding?
We are entitled to know the order of any reduced provision, if there be one; the nature of any reduced provision, if such is the case; and whether in effect this is a case of robbing defence Peter, as the press seem to put it, in order to pay NHS Paul? We also wish to have the assurance that the Territorials and Volunteer Reserves shall retain their secured provision. I shall not elaborate because it was so well explained, if I may say so with respect, by my noble friend Lord Vivian.
One seeks also, if one may, an assurance that due account has been taken of overstretch in the context of recruitment. As to recruitment, overstretch cannot wholly be mitigated by the recruitment of women. There is the "apple factor" at sea, and on land the limitation of physical capability to heave around heavy loads, for example—speaking from experience—heavy artillery shells.
May I ask also, has due account been taken of the disincentive to enlist unless and until the law of homicide has been amended and the mandatory life sentence for murder has been abolished? I am not suggesting that there should be one law for the armed services and another for civilians: I am talking about the general law. But it affects the Army and the armed services in circumstances in which civilians do not find themselves. This general question has particular reference to the cases of Clegg and the two Scots guardsmen. It is understood that Clegg has now been released on licence but the two Scots guardsmen remain in prison. The release of Clegg was on the advice of the review board which was acted upon.
In a parliamentary Written Answer to a Question put by my noble friend Lord Westbury on 3rd November in the Official Report at col. WA275, the Secretary of State claims public interest immunity from disclosure of the advice of the review hoard. Such is his entitlement: it is not open to reasonable criticism. However, there is more to it than that because there are no grounds on which a refusal to answer the question I am about to put could be refused on grounds of public immunity. The question is, did the decision to defer the question of release for another year, taken by the Secretary of State, truly reflect the advice of the review board tendered in each case. Having given due notice to the Government Chief Whip of this question, I respectfully seek an answer. In a sense your Lordships' House is a court of law and it is right here that I should ask the question and that I should get an answer.
At all events, I most respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to use his good offices to seek to call in those documents. The confidentiality to one Secretary of State can be held on the grounds of public immunity,

1501
but there is no reason why public immunity should run to prevent the noble Lord from seeking those documents from another Secretary of State. Will he do that? Will he also be good enough to seek to ensure that these guardsmen are dealt with according to the advice of the review board, each on the merits?
I apologise for the time I have taken. However, before concluding, I wish to associate myself with the most moving tributes that have already been paid by noble and gallant Lords and other noble Lords to our Armed Forces.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, although I know it is not desirable to have a succession of formal congratulations on maiden speeches, I hope the House will indulge me, on the grounds of my personal association with both the maiden speakers today, to offer my congratulations. The maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, was precisely what one would have expected. It was a carefully measured, common sense and constructive speech of the kind one might expect from one of our most distinguished senior soldiers and, unhappily, one who might possibly be described as our last field marshal. As for the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, I can only say that his speech was as brief, as relevant and as cogent as most of the advice that he used to give me when I was a Minister in the Foreign Office. I very much hope that I shall be here many times to hear both the noble Lord, Lord Renwick, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, speaking in your Lordships' House.
I want to begin my remarks by thanking the Minister for giving us an opportunity to debate the Government's defence policy and also congratulating him on the clear, unambiguous and practical way in which he introduced the debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to intrude a faintly personal note here in that it was this week 33 years ago that I first took my seat in your Lordships' House. I mention it simply to say that in those days the government of the day had a most robust attitude towards the defence of the realm. Indeed, how could it be otherwise when the noble Lord, Lord Healey, was Secretary of State for Defence?
Much has changed, but I think it would be right and fair to express the view that this Government also have, so far, taken a welcome and robust attitude towards defence policy. I would only express the hope that that view will not be changed by the outcome of the current defence review, when it is known. As the Minister well knows, there will be pressures, both from inside his own party and from elsewhere, to modify their policy, sometimes on financial and economic grounds, but also at a more emotional level. There will be inevitable complaints on the lines that money saved from the defence budget could be more usefully directed towards overseas aid programmes, social services, education, health and so on. Those are, of course, to some people very seductive arguments. But I suggest that they ignore the obvious fact that, without strong and secure defences, we might well lose the ability to have any of those other desirable things at all. Edmund Burke said at the time of the French Revolution:
1502
"The cheap defence of nations is gone".
That statement has even more truth in it now than it had when it was made two centuries ago. In the age of advanced military technology there is no such thing as defence on the cheap. As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, rightly said, we have to pay a premium to ensure our continued security. I hope very much that the Government will continue to resist any facile arguments against paying it.
There will also be, as I have suggested, pressures of a different kind. One which has had some currency recently is the campaign for what is called "a nuclear-free world". The arguments about this have been fully deployed in your Lordships' House on a recent occasion and I shall not rehearse them in detail again. I shall only say that there are two principal weaknesses in the nuclear-free world theory: first, that it is impossible to erase the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons—people will make them and use them if they think it is in their interests to do so—and, secondly, that, even if we could remove and erase the memory of nuclear weapons altogether, their removal from the military equation would leave us all at the mercy of any country which was prepared to spend a large proportion of its national resources on conventional forces. I express the hope that the Government will stand firm against this kind of thinking which seems to be based on faith in the possibility of rerationalising the whole of military strategy and military theory in the absence of a nuclear weapon.
The Government will find—they probably have already found—convincing arguments against that way of thinking in a recent study entitled Thinking About Nuclear Weapons by Sir Michael Quinlan, a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that the Government have already studied that document with great care. But I suggest that it should be read by anyone seriously interested in the debate about nuclear deterrence and disarmament. For any noble Lord who would like to know, it is published by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. It is a penetrating study by one of the leading experts on nuclear weapons in this country.
In parenthesis, this leads me to comment, outside the nuclear sphere, on the dangers of what might be called single weapon disarmament—the habit some campaigning groups have of seizing on a certain weapon and demanding its removal, although that removal would in itself change the whole nature of warfare. One of the more recent examples of this has been the campaign, referred to by the Minister, to abolish landmines as military weapons. Of course, we are all horrified by television pictures of people with limbs blown off and other terrible injuries caused by anti-personnel mines which have not been properly cleared from old battlefields. But all weapons of war are, in the final analysis, horrible. However, military planners have to bear in mind that there may be occasions when the security of a defensive force faced by overwhelmingly superior attackers could most effectively be protected by minefields. We must bear that in mind in confronting this kind of campaign. The real problem about mines lies in the need to have fully

1503
effective systems of clearance rather than the simple prohibition of mines as a weapon, which prohibition will be totally ignored if some country decides that it is in its best interests to manufacture and deploy them in time of war.
However, to return to the nuclear dimension, even those who do not subscribe fully to the nuclear-free world theory will be pressing the Government—and they have already begun—to reduce the number of missiles or warheads in our Trident force on the basis that they are more than we need to provide a "minimum deterrent". Many people who use that phrase have not the faintest idea what it means. The provision of a minimum nuclear deterrent is based on a whole range of interlocking strategic and technical criteria. It is very complicated. They include the ability of a potential enemy to provide effective defence against ballistic missiles—and let us bear in mind that ballistic missile defences are still allowed under international agreements. We should also bear in mind—and it is often forgotten in this argument: Sir Michael Quinlan has recently pointed it out again—that the Trident missiles on our new deterrent force will not have the aids to penetration of ballistic missile defences that the old Chevaline version of the Polaris missiles had. Trident will not be able to penetrate sophisticated ballistic missile defences to the same extent.
The number of submarines, missiles and warheads in the Trident force was very carefully calculated when the force was planned and in my opinion, as the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, so eloquently said, it would be foolish to start tinkering with it now. In this context I was especially interested, and a little concerned, to see a report in The Times last Tuesday that the Secretary of State for Defence has said that the defence review would,
"reassess Britain's nuclear posture with a view to seeing what is the appropriate level of credible minimum deterrence".
When the Minister comes to reply, I hope that he can assure us categorically that that will be done on the basis of a careful assessment of all the military criteria and the strategic implications, and that it will not be distorted by pressures from the Treasury or elsewhere which do not take account of all possible current and future security requirements.
There will, of course, be pressures for change in non-nuclear defence policies as well. There is much talk about providing a common infrastructure for the Armed Forces to eliminate wasteful duplication of administrative and support elements of the Armed Forces. All that, of course, is eminently desirable and no one could possibly argue against it. But I fear that there is a danger that it may lead—it has already begun in some comments—to ideas about the merging of the three services into one single service: the process which used to be called, when I was in the Army, "The Purple Solution". This experiment, as we know, has been tried in one or two other countries without very much success and I hope that the Government will bear in the mind that the morale of the Armed Forces has been placed under enough strain already by recent reorganisations,
1504
redeployments and restructurings and that an attempt to make a radical change of this nature in the organisation of our Armed Forces might have disastrous results.
Pressures of that kind, and others, might not seem to matter so much if we lived in a safe and predictable world. But, as other noble Lords have said, we do not. Indeed, I would argue that the world is less safe now than it was in the relatively simple scenario of the east-west confrontation. It would perhaps be going a little too far to say, as Thomas Hobbes wrote in his famous Leviathan that,
"the condition of man…is a condition of war of everyone against everyone else".
But it is true that we have certainly not found a way—nor do we seem likely to do so—of eliminating war as an element in the conduct of international relations. The possibility of conflict in which we might well be involved is as great today as it has ever been. In the interests of time, I shall not rehearse the familiar litany of possible threats—external ambitions in Russia; the dangers of Chinese expansionism; the threat of a critical breakdown in Arab/Israel relations; the unpredictable nature of Middle East regimes like Iraq, Iran and Libya; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them and international terrorism. I could go on almost endlessly. Any government which neglected their defence arrangements in such an environment would be placing the nation at great risk, and I do not believe that this Government will take that risk.
In conclusion, the need for well-organised, well-equipped and well-motivated Armed Forces for war fighting is further underlined by the recently declared intention of the Secretary of State for Defence, mentioned by the Minister, to use the Armed Forces in what has been described as a network of military-to-military contacts to disarm some of the Cold War perceptions that have grown up over the past 50 years. This is a most constructive concept and we must wish the Government every success in achieving it. When people talk about the horrors of war they sometimes forget that it is soldiers, sailors and airmen, especially those with experience of combat, who understand most clearly what those horrors of war really are and who are most determined to ensure that, if possible, they are never exposed to them again.
I repeat that in my view the Government are to be commended on the constructive and resolute approach they have so far taken towards the defence of the realm. We shall await with much interest, and with sharpened knives, the results of the current defence review, while expressing the hope that it will not give rise to any further instability in the defence establishment.
The Minister of all people will not need reminding that dangers come not only from malevolent and aggressive forces from without, but also from well-meaning but misguided friends within. I hope that the Government will be as firm in confronting them as they appear to be in their determination to confront the external threat.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Westbury: My Lords, although my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Trefgarne have already spoken about Guardsmen Wright and Fisher, the late Lord Shinwell said that one had to say things three times in this House before anyone listened. So here we go for the third time.
May I now quickly say what a scandalous and sad affair for the whole of the Army is the extra year's prison sentence recommended by the Northern Ireland Life Sentence Review Board. These two guardsmen have already served five years for doing their duty for Queen and country, as laid down in the yellow card. It has now been recommended that they should be had up for murder and given an extra year. That is intolerable.
These men are roughly 20 years old, so that they will serve nearly a quarter of their lives in prison. I know that the final decision for their release is in the power of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know how tricky is the situation in Northern Ireland at the moment. I have a sneaking feeling that this matter has become a political football. If the lives of young men serving their country can be treated like this, I believe that it is not a great encouragement to young men to join the Armed Forces. Therefore, may I plead for their immediate release on humanitarian grounds?
5.27 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, at the outset I must declare an interest. For most of my life I have worked, and still work, both professionally and voluntarily, with NGOs and humanitarian agencies closely concerned with international security matters. These include organisations like Saferworld, International Alert and Oxfam.
In recent weeks we have seen a firm stand by leaders of the armed services themselves, together with their Ministers, on the imperative for the services to represent, in terms of gender and ethnic composition, the society they exist to defend. My noble friend underlined that again today. I hope that this House will unequivocally declare its support for all that is at last being done in an attempt to ensure that ethnic minorities and women are enabled to play the full part in the work of the Navy, Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force that they should have been able to play long ago.
Obviously, the House is keenly looking forward to the outcome of what we have repeatedly been assured will be a foreign policy-led strategic defence review. The Government are to be congratulated not only on the decision to break free of the Treasury short-term expediency, which had dominated defence for too long under the previous government—expediency which played havoc with morale and the ability to plan ahead with confidence—but they also deserve congratulations on the open way they have gone about the task, positively inviting comment and ideas from a wide constituency of interest and expertise. It is fervently to be hoped that what emerges will command widespread support and will convincingly set the context for a long time ahead.
1506
I hope that the results will demonstrate that the New Labour Government have had the self-confidence and courage to take a clean sheet of paper, look at the real security issues and threats facing the UK now and into the 21st century and then design a defence and security policy which meets the challenges ahead. The hard decisions will be how to reshape what we have now to what we need for the future. The discipline must surely be at all costs to avoid an overarching commitment to what we currently have. The Government owe it to the service men and women, the civilians in defence, the defence industry and, indeed, the taxpayers to come up with a relevant, viable policy for the world as it is going to be—not a rationalisation for a modified status quo.
As this, I hope, radical review takes place, there will be an ideal opportunity to re-examine and, if need be, redefine what we understand security to be in the post-Cold War, highly interdependent world in which we live. How does what we have traditionally seen as defence knit coherently together with our global economic, social, migration, development, trade, environment and other policies which are all central to building a stable, secure future for humanity? Indeed, I hope that there has been the closest possible constant co-operation between those working on the defence review and those working on the White Paper on Overseas Development. The relationship is obvious. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us on this. It would be sad if New Labour had missed this opportunity to break out of the institutionalised mould and to think imaginatively and laterally.
We are one of only five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. What does the responsibility of that leadership position—if we are to retain it—demand of us? The Security Council is about global stewardship or it is about nothing. If we still aspire to a special place on the council, what should we be contributing towards global stewardship?
I know that the Polly Toynbees of the media are arguing for us in Britain to reduce our contribution to collective security and scale down the level of our international commitments. Their thesis seems to be that the UK suffers from delusions of imperial grandeur, that the size of the defence budget is vastly in excess of what is necessary and that billions of pounds should be redirected into health, education and other public services. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to that. At a time when public services are desperate for additional resources, there is a superficial appeal in all this. But the UK cannot isolate itself from the global realities of which we are inescapably a part. It is difficult to think of a nation which has a greater interest in a stable, secure world than ours or, conversely, which is more vulnerable to the consequences of instability, with all its unpredictability, insecurity and violent upheaval.
Of course, we cannot police the world on our own. Such a notion is as ridiculous as it is dangerous. But that does not mean the world does not have to be policed. The challenge is how this is to be done successfully on a co-operative international basis and how we play our convincing part in it. Just as sane Members of this House, on all sides, recognise that

1507
strategic aspects of economic, social and environmental reality have become globalised, and that to safeguard the people of our islands we must therefore be in there batting in the EU, G7 and the rest, so the globalisation of the strategic aspects of security demand that we must be in there batting as part of NATO and the UN in order to safeguard our own people no less than anyone else; and if we are to bat effectively, we have to will the means to meet our part of the responsibility.
My noble friend was right to remind us that the review will naturally have to address the specific security issues which still have a unique significance for the UK: Northern Ireland; surveillance of the air and waters surrounding the UK; the external defence of the 13 remaining dependent territories, including the Falkland Islands; our obligations to British nationals living in areas of political instability or at risk from environmental disasters; and support for the civil power in combating terrorism.
But what of the wider challenges? These must include the stability of the European continent and adjacent territories—and this means not only adapting and expanding NATO and getting the relationship right between NATO and WEU, OSCE and the UN but, vitally, getting right the essential co-operation between NATO and Russia and between NATO and the non-member central and east European states. We must be vigilant not to provoke the very dangers of nationalism and hostility which NATO is there to contain.
Then there is the need for conflict prevention, pre-emptive diplomacy, peacekeeping, peace support and control of the arms trade across the world. For all of these, our contribution to the revitalisation of a credible UN will be indispensable; and the Government's determination to secure a code of conduct for the arms trade during their presidency of the EU will be of potentially far-reaching significance. But it must be a code which means something and which guarantees far greater scrutiny and transparency—not one carefully crafted to make no real difference. The dangers meanwhile of the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction are disturbing. Effective international action is urgently required. The non-proliferation treaty is crucially important. It needs to be reinforced. We must therefore take care in the presentation of our own nuclear deterrent policy lest, as perceived by others, it could give grounds to those who wish to undermine the NPT.
International law is highly relevant to security. When international law is violated with virtual impunity, as happened in Rwanda with respect to the Genocide Convention, there is a general weakening in its authority. The administration and application of international law must be invigorated. The importance of consistency cannot be over-emphasised. However, the process must not be allowed to become selective or simply another tool for the mighty. The proposed international criminal court, if—but only if—even-handed and consistent in its work, could make a powerful contribution to international security.
1508
The UK has long had a key interest in helping to underwrite a global order in which trade and investment flows can proceed safely without disruption from violent conflict or political instability. But we also have a key interest in promoting fairer trade in the cause of more inclusive and sustainable development of the world's poorer countries, not just because it is ethically right—as it is—but because this will underpin greater world stability. It cannot be coincidental that 15 of the 20 poorest countries in the world have experienced significant violent conflict in the past 15 years. By far and away the majority of the world's contemporary armed conflicts are taking place within the less developed countries of the world.
Climate change, ozone depletion, damage to biodiversity are not so-called "soft security" threats. They are ominously real. We could yet look rather silly if, in an over-concentration on traditionally understood concepts of security, we fail to register the damage and destruction which is threatened by mismanagement of the environment. I hope that the Strategic Defence Review will look at this and consider what contribution might be made by the armed services to peaceful solutions before it is too late. And on our own doorstep, as we agonise about the pressures on our immediate environment, not least on land and open space, I hope that the review will seize the issue of the urgent need for an environmentally friendly comprehensive policy on the management and disposal of defence land and on the general use of land by the services.
It is also essential for the review to consider carefully the escalating number of refugees and displaced people—perhaps as many as 100 million by the turn of the century—and to analyse the implications of this huge pool of human misery for world stability, not to mention its close relationship to international terrorism; and we must remember that there will be increasing numbers of environmental refugees as well. I believe that the refugee crisis and its destabilising implications underline dramatically why concern for human rights and an ethical foreign policy is not, as the blinkered cynics would sometimes have it, nonsense—I have heard more crude descriptions than that—but basic to security. Oppression breeds insecurity. We forget that at our peril.
I believe that the Government have embarked on a brave course in this Strategic Defence Review. They have opened themselves to unprecedented public scrutiny and debate. I wish them well, but I believe that if they are to succeed in their endeavour, the issue of resources cannot be escaped. If we will the ends, we shall also have to will the means.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I feel diffident indeed speaking after two such distinguished maiden speakers. The difficulty about this debate is that while we are addressing our remarks to the Minister (whose heart I believe to be distinctly in the right place) and while the Secretary of State has said all the right things about the UK's commitment to NATO, the Atlantic alliance, the Eurofighter and Trident, together with small but significant gestures such as the new

1509
approach to the Gulf War and the investment of £1.1 million in reviewing records, alas the real arbiter of the future of defence in this country is the Treasury, renowned for its short-termism ever since the days of the 10-year rule, and, to a lesser but still perhaps significant extent, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because of the almost inevitable conflict in some areas between the ethical foreign policy and the procurement aspects of defence.
Normally, I would have spoken about the Russian threat. Today I shall say only, once more, that Russia remains a potential threat to peace and stability in Europe and has not gone away and that NATO, the successful and non-aggressive preserver of peace for over 50 years, must be maintained at the strength necessary to provide a credible deterrent. This means that we must not allow our financial support of NATO and the ARCC to be cut. NATO has also acquired a very positive and constructive role not as a wall but as a bridge builder and force to reduce tension through the Partnership for Peace and the founding Act. However much I still believe that it allows the Trojans within the wall, it can be a first stage in the new relationship with Russia provided it is not allowed to weaken NATO's solidarity and it is accepted that no strategic review can ignore Russia's future capacity to act as a powerful military power and a potential threat to stability.
There is, however, one immediately relevant aspect of Russian activity. I refer to Russia's success in selling arms and equipment to the Far East and its near monopoly in India. I refer to its sales of military aircraft, and now possibly missiles, to Indonesia; sales of aircraft and submarines to China; sales of aircraft to Malaysia, and so on. Thus, the Russians are able to retain their defence industry—a major employer and scientific innovator—achieve growing political influence in the area and, not least, ensure that they are able to supply their own forces with the latest modern armaments. We, too, need to support and encourage our defence industry for the same reason. As strongly indicated in the other place this week, we cannot contemplate being dependent on the French for our ordnance in time of war, as we infamously were dependent on the Belgians during the Gulf War for ammunition because we had abandoned our manufacturing capacity. The trade union briefing on the Royal Ordnance issue was quoted in the other place on 28th October at column 765:
"Unless Government intervenes to protect strategic capacity … Britain will, in future, have to depend on France to meet the needs of our armed forces, including in times of crisis".
When it comes down to it, the Government have a duty, as they have accepted, to protect the realm. The Minister needs no lectures on this. I say it for the Treasury's ears, not his. Meanwhile, a way must be found to prevent the application of the ethical principle as defined by this Government from emasculating the essential, inescapable commitment to equip our Armed Forces, themselves a most important part of our foreign policy, as they will need to be equipped in the 21st century if they are to keep the peace, not least in the vital area of Northern Ireland.
1510
There is already in existence a formidable machinery of departmental checks and balances to ensure that all arms orders are fully vetted. That has been in place for some time. Since it is obviously right to save money where we can, for the Treasury's ears it is worth quoting the Ministry of Defence performance report. That report states that during 1996–7 defence exports saved £300 million for the defence budget through lower procurement costs resulting from the spreading of company fixed overheads.
There are other issues that I should like to address. One is trust; another is accountability, an example of a serious failure in that area emerging in the further memorandum on the Gulf War. A third issue is full recognition that the men and women of the armed services are fully entitled, like other citizens, to certain basic rights and privileges, notably a home, a decent quality of life and, among other things, access to medical services. I believe that part of the reason for the serious shortfall in recruitment is that the services are perceived by those who know little or nothing about them, and are judged by the media, as having a most uncertain future; as lacking status and relevance in society, as they understand it; and as survivors and a manifestation of outdated imperial privilege. That at least some in government share the last perception may account for the almost invisible profile of the military at the Commonwealth Conference. That was a serious miscalculation in the eyes of most Commonwealth countries who have had long and proud traditions of service under the Crown.
I need not expand the point about the apparently uncertain future. We already spend a lower percentage of GDP (2.7 per cent.) than Greece or Turkey, let alone the US; less per capita than Norway, France, Denmark or the US; and less in actual expenditure than the US, France or Germany. Before Parliament returned from the Recess it was hardly reassuring to read in the Sunday Times of 12th October that the Treasury,
"intended to force the MoD into a huge disposal of land and other assets in order to finance its future equipment spending".
That included,
"land acquired for firing ranges and other military purposes but no longer used".
I hope that that is not right and that the Minister will be able to tell us more, particularly as the article went on to claim that the military should take a less prominent role overseas, including international peacekeeping efforts, because the Armed Forces could no longer afford it.
Has the Treasury already decided that the Armed Forces can neither train at home nor operate overseas, or are they to be limited to clearing up rubbish in inner cities? The general fear probably within the services but certainly among those who still believe in their importance and value is that, while this review which is now set to last for a year proceeds in good faith, all the props will be quietly kicked away by unilateral Treasury action and never discussed on the Floor of the House. Its distinguishing feature will be short-termism, as displayed by that department over the married quarters estate. The Minister will be aware that the National Audit Office has since confirmed the view, cogently

1511
argued in this House, that, as the MoD's own figures showed, taxpayers would have been significantly better off if that sale had been halted. As it is, the new owner will make large profits while the MoD pays rents to be reviewed every five years and is responsible for maintenance. I raise this because it is an unhappy example of the short termism of the Treasury and its power to drive defence policy purely to save money.
It seems to me that the Defence Secondary Care Agency's only positive achievement is a substantial saving for the defence budget, as it proudly claims, at a terrible cost to the delivery of medical services to the forces. The noble Lord's right honourable friend in the other place has called for an urgent review of the position. I fervently hope that this will lead to the restoration of separate service medical care, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Vivian. In housing and in medical care the services have had a very bad deal. Part of the process of restoring trust will be to remedy that as soon as possible.
That brings me to another related concern. I see from the admirable MoD performance report that yet another agency, the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, was launched on 1st April of this year as a follow-up to the Bett Report. I quote from paragraph 402:
"The Agency has two primary objectives: first, to provide a modern and efficient pay and pensions service for everyone in the Armed Forces, be they full time, part time or reservist; and, second, to deliver reliable and responsive personnel data and administrative support. central policy staff and personnel managers in each service".
So far, so good.
It goes on:
"It is planned to appoint a private sector partner under the Government's Private Finance Initiative to provide these services on the Agency's behalf. The partner will be required to develop tri-service systems for pay, pensions and personnel administration, and to shoulder much of the business risk involved".
I see shades of the student loan scheme there.
The House will not have forgotten the view of the Public Accounts Committee of the operations of the Student Loan Company in 1994–95 where its failure was largely attributed by the committee to inadequate consultation and inadequate contingency plans. It commented that the subsequent proposal for a twin-track public/private loan scheme would require extremely careful departmental oversight. Will the next step be an RAS-style sale? I hope that excessive contractualisation, too many redundancies and the civilianisation of some 1,000 military posts has not left the services without the professional skills they badly need, especially in the field of information technology. I hope they will be able effectively to oversee these outside advisers and partners who will not understand either the culture or the needs of the services.
I am not encouraged by what I read about the complex contracts required to implement Project CAPITAL. That is the new system for resource accounting and budgeting in the MoD. I feel even greater concern over this. I hope that the MoD will not
1512
have to spend more time on accounting for money than on its central purpose of defence. No successful business allows its policy to be driven by accountants.
Reverting, finally, to my point about the difficulties of recruitment, I have noted with great pleasure the many measures being taken under the performance report. I believe it is of the greatest importance to convince potential recruits that on joining the services they are entering a modern environment, full of high-tech skills and professionalism, where they will find exciting challenges and go away with considerably enhanced prospects in the world of work outside.
The Government, therefore, have to be seen by their deeds to regard the Armed Forces as a major national asset worth boasting about as part of the future as well as the glorious past and, above all, as something worth investing in.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Minister for introducing this very important subject in your Lordships' Chamber. I also reiterate the remarks of earlier speakers in saying how very much I enjoyed listening to the two maiden speeches.
The Government of this country has for many years had limited choice as to how they arranged Britain's defences. There was a clear and certain threat which had to be met and an absolute and binding commitment to NATO which required us to maintain certain forces in particular locations.
Today the scenario is very different. There is not a direct threat to Britain, or in relation to the question of our aid to one of our NATO partners. It follows that we are no longer constrained to the same extent by the needs of defending our homeland and meeting the stringent defence requirements of NATO. The Government therefore have some choice about which of Britain's interests it seeks to promote or protect, how to meet our obligations and commitments around the world, and whether to become involved in any disputes at all.
There are a number of people in this country who believe that since the demise of the Soviet Union there is no threat for our Armed Forces to meet and that without the threat we once faced from the Soviet Union the needs of defence can safely take second or third place behind the many other worthy claims on taxpayers' money. To accept that scenario is both wrong and dangerously misleading. The fact is, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, we followed a continental strategy. We relied upon relatively static, mainly land based, forces to meet the threat we saw coming from one particular source. Such certainties have gone and with it the logic of relying on such forces. I firmly believe that the Strategic Defence Review has the potential to undertake an important role here. It must become the watermark in the transformation of the services into expeditionary forces.
The number of disputes flaring up around the world has increased markedly. The geographical spread has grown and, where technology and the sale of advanced

1513
weapons to maverick states has ballooned, we face some very demanding requirements of our forces. The overriding aim must be to prevent crises and conflict through deterrence and to promote Britain's interests. That means we need capable forces for use in war which are useful in peace.
As an ex-naval officer, I am struck by how our naval forces get on quietly with their day to day tasks. Just consider for a moment how useful our ships are today and every day in peacetime. We have seen HMS "Monmouth", off the Congo, standing by to go to the aid of British citizens if needed. We have also seen the Royal Navy's quick reaction to safeguard British lives in Albania, and HMS "Liverpool", as the West Indies guardship, combining the vital roles of disaster relief, so needed in Montserrat earlier this year, with her very successful anti-drugs work. The list goes on.
Those same ships and their crews, while being flexible enough to promote this country's interests in peace, are also ready at extremely short notice to deter, coerce, or meet force with force and win. They have the ability to operate wherever they are required, with or without any infrastructure or help from neighbouring states. They are also able to operate together, and with other nations.
Let us not lose sight of how best to achieve the most effective Armed Forces this country can afford. I have heard much nonsense talked during the review and in the past about the diminishing need for the Armed Forces, how the Royal Air Force could be disbanded, how peacekeeping operations only require land forces and how, with modern air communications, there is no longer any need for an amphibious capability.
The fact is, we require all three services to complement each other, to be used to working together on a regular basis and to be capable of leading or participating with other nations' forces in the widest scale of operations; in two words it means jointery and interoperability. If we are to aim for true jointery we need joint doctrine leading to a joint concept of operations. If we are to achieve real interoperability with the Armed Forces of other nations we also need to bring in our allies and friends. The review must embrace this fact. This means prioritising certain assets—in particular, command and communications, which must be totally interoperable. It also means ensuring priority is placed on the best of each service, complementing each other.
This joint approach avoids the pitfalls of looking at a single conflict and shaping our force structures to meet that scenario. In this regard I am concerned that much of the review seems to concentrate on experience from the Gulf War and land forces. Clearly, maritime forces can never be a substitute for substantial land forces or significant land based air power, but none of us should forget we face one overriding consideration: uncertainty. If we cannot provide forces with flexibility, we shall certainly fail to have the capability to meet the future risks we face.
Whenever I talk about flexibility I am brought back time and again to the advantages of maritime power. Maritime forces have an enormous contribution to make
1514
to joint operations. Just consider for a moment the list of requirements I mentioned a few moments ago. I know from my service in the Royal Navy the remarkable way a warship can come and go in areas of tension such as the Gulf, the Adriatic and in the Far East, using the international highway of the high seas. They may be fully involved in low level diplomacy at one moment and, in the next, represent a fully capable unit, fully worked up and fully ready to deter, coerce and fight.
There is no way other than by sea that we can deliver heavy battle-winning equipment. There is no more cost-effective way to allow the Government the choice of whether to intervene, or get involved in a regional dispute, than through the ability to deploy a warship, submarine or amphibious task group. It does not commit the Government to anything, but can, nonetheless, send the strongest of diplomatic signals to strengthen our Foreign Office initiatives. It does not depend on persuading neighbouring states to get involved, by hosting our forces, perhaps against their political wish. It does not require even basic infrastructure, such as airfields and roads, to deliver a powerful punch if required, and nor is it time limited, given the ability to replenish at sea.
Will the Minister assure the House that the review will ensure that our Armed Forces are able to operate without host nation support? Of course those advantages depend on the availability of aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and submarines, with their supporting units, but it is important that these are not considered just naval assets.
The future carrier is a classic example. It must be seen for what it is, a joint defence asset, a large floating airfield capable of carrying the maximum number of types of aircraft, from all the services, and from our allies and friends' services around the world. Will the Minister assure the House that the contribution given by the core capabilities of the Royal Navy and its supporting assets to our joint capability will be safeguarded in the review?
If the Government want real choice about whether to get involved or not in yet unforeseen incidents arising around the world, they must fully recognise the vital role and contribution of maritime forces in projecting this country's foreign and defence policy.
I turn finally to a specific aspect of the review that concerns me particularly. From what I have read in the press, it appears that there is a view, held by some, that Britain should not, in defence terms, look east of Suez. The logic appears to be that, as a medium-sized European nation, with few commitments in the Far East, where any major threat is well beyond the horizon, we should concentrate our defence assets within the European region.
If that is true, I cannot think of a more short-sighted approach. In these days of increasing globalisation, none of us can pretend that a lack of stability in the Far East will not affect us, whether in a fortress Europe or not. The recent reverberations from the roller coaster ride of the stock markets in the region is a small but timely reminder. If it is the sheer cost of stationing forces in

1515
the region that is of concern, then let me say that the recent Ocean Wave Task Group showed what can be achieved for this country through periodic deployments.
The marginal cost was remarkably low, while the benefits were extremely large, in terms of visible commitment to stability in a region, quite apart from the more direct benefits to the economy, through defence and non-defence sales. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not lose sight of the vital importance of forward presence, by the Royal Navy, in areas like the Far East?
I said at the outset that prevention is better and cheaper than cure, and our Armed Forces should be designed with that fundamental premise in mind. The Government must ensure that the strategic defence review enables Britain to retain the most flexible Armed Forces possible, with the real capability to undertake whatever challenge is given to them, wherever in the world such a challenge might arise; nothing less will do.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl who has had, as noble Lords will be aware, a distinguished career in the Royal Navy. It is also a great pleasure to find that the Minister has instituted a debate on defence policy. I admire his devotion to duty and courage. Whenever there is a review of policy—perhaps I am a cynical accountant—I think always of "do more for less". I shall forgive the Minister, because he has considerable experience. In terms of my low level military career, he can be said to have his knees brown in a previous administration as well as in this one. In all seriousness, we are lucky to have him and his experience in your Lordships' House so that he can put your Lordships' views into the mixture and hotchpotch of a defence review. I hope that there will be no more radical changes as a result of the review. If anything does happen, I think that it will be for the better, due, in no small measure, to the Minister, because he will know what to do.
I have read a great deal about more joint training and exercises. I do not think that it is necessarily part of the Government's programme, let alone is it being discussed actively, but I have seen some reports that discussions were circling round the suggestion of combining the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines. A cold shiver went down my spine. I can see the point of combining training, because the two do similar tasks. That is one example, and I hope that the Minister will bring his good sense, competence and experience, to bear on such matters, and on what I might call the zeal of the reformers.
The Chief of the General Staff spoke to some of your Lordships earlier this week. He stressed what has been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. The Chief of the General Staff said that the British Army could not do without the enormous help it receives from the RAF and the Royal Navy in Northern Ireland, let alone anywhere else. Northern Ireland is special for me. One sees the example of the combined operations which have developed there in support of the civil power for
1516
over 30 years now. It is a frightening thought—is it not?—that at the end of this parliamentary term, when summer comes again and when your Lordships become more and more overburdened with late and all-night sittings, it will be 30 years since there were things such as the civil rights marches in Northern Ireland which gave rise to the present unstable political situation.
Who has kept the peace, kept the ring there? We heard from the Minister that it is the RUC aided by the British Army and, of course, the RAF and the Royal Navy. I have every reason to be grateful to the RUC and many branches of the defence forces as I spent five and a bit years in Northern Ireland.
I am batting quite high up the speakers' list. I am speaking at number 12 which for me is very high indeed. However, I am number one for humility because I, of all your Lordships of a certain age, do not have a great deal of military experience—less than two years as a national serviceman. My knowledge of all things military and connected with defence has been enormously improved thanks to my noble friends Lord Ironside and Lord Vivian and the APDSG which is not a new battle tank or anything like that, but is the all-party defence study group. It is a group of noble Lords of enormous experience, wisdom and toughness. It has already been explained that the treasurer of our group is now serving in Bosnia.
I had no idea of that. I had heard that my noble friend Lord Attlee was away. I received a little reminder from him with a cheque asking me to pay a small bill that arose from a ceremony last June. It was one of the attendants who said to me, "Oh, well, my Lord, you will not find him, he is in Bosnia. Isn't that interesting?". I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that the cheque has gone to him. At least I hope that it has. It is an enormous privilege for me to travel with and be part of that group. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, has taught me a great deal and we are lucky to have her talents and personal qualities on our visits around Europe and Britain.
At the end of August my regiment, the Scots Guards, was recruiting in my home city of Dundee. Two issues arose. First, the Deputy Lord Provost suggested to me and to the Scots Guards that countless boys and girls, which is nice, in Dundee had great personal qualities. They know that there is a good career, a wonderful job and a new life in the Armed Forces. Thank goodness a few of them were thinking of joining the Scots Guards. The Deputy Lord Provost's announcement visibly shook many members of the recruiting team who believed that they would have to make a big effort. They were delighted with the enthusiasm shown by many young people and their interest is being followed up.
Secondly, I was greatly impressed with the enthusiasm of every member of the recruiting team. They had adapted their enthusiasm and personal qualities to the era of the late 1990s and into the new millennium—the dreaded word. During that visit two aspects were apparent. The first related to recruiting. As the Minister pointed out, it is necessary to boost the numbers in all the Armed Forces. Whenever I go on a visit with the all-party defence study group the quality

1517
of the soldiers amazes me. Soldiers of all ranks are articulate, forthright and, if I may put it politely, on the good side of bumptious. They are enormously self-confident and immensely proud of their job and their capacity to carry it out, no matter what we might demand of them.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who made a cracking maiden speech, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, might ponder on my next remark. I spent five weeks away from your Lordships' House. There was a television in my room and most evenings I was a little idle and pressed the button. I noticed an advertisement on the independent channel showing fireworks, pyrotechnics and men and women with painted faces. The advertisement was for the British Army. It pointed out that the British Army wins its battle at night and used the three words, "Be the best". That is interesting—I had never thought of it—because it represents what we are debating today.
The number of men and women needed in all the services will be addressed competently by the Minister. One could spend 24 hours discussing the strategic role of the defence forces, and the Minister reminded us of the various seminars and the constructive contributions to them. I believe that the Minister is capable of seeing what is required and will be the best, or close to it, of all the political representatives. I have some military knowledge of the Army and know what the strategic role involves. For the past 30 years it has been in Northern Ireland, but there has also been a major strategic role in Bosnia. Do your Lordships recall the extraordinary spring day of April 1982 when your Lordships and Members of the other place met on a Saturday? That started what I believed to be a terrifying campaign, which turned out unbelievably well, in the Falklands. Do your Lordships remember the first days of August 1990? I was in Switzerland and saw on the cable network news the invasion of Kuwait. That illustrates the fact that one never knows the demands which will be placed on our servicemen and women.
"Overstretch" is a popular term of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. I hope that the Minister agrees that the training of soldiers has become more complicated and that they must use more sophisticated equipment. Furthermore, they must take part in joint operations. There is always a need for new recruits and new members of the team, whether in Northern Ireland or in Bosnia.
There is another life which, happily, was referred to by the Minister and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. It is family life. Not just husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, but often fathers and mothers require help. I hope that the Minister will indicate that soldiers, let alone other members of the defence forces, will no longer be asked to spend two, three and even four consecutive Christmases away from their families.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, spoke about the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. As an aside, I point out that there are five Scots Guardsmen in the Chamber today. I am, to use a tactful word, "gobsmacked" at hearing that a public interest immunity has taken place in relation to that decision. I am not
1518
astonished by anything that happens in Northern Ireland, but I hope that at some stage we shall have some decent news.
At the end of the previous debate in the summer I told your Lordships that it was the 40th anniversary of me becoming Guardsman Lyell, let alone recruit Lyell. Forty years ago this week I was seized firmly by an avuncular figure. He said, "Thanks to the training and the effort that we have put into you, it is likely that you will end up commanding a platoon of 30 men". That distinguished Coldstream Guardsman shook me firmly like a small terrier and said, "Don't you dare let them or me down". That was the late father of a well respected and loved member of your Lordships' staff, Mr. Blood. Forty years ago, Mr. Blood senior dinned into me that my efforts and responsibilities at the low level of platoon commander were part of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, described today.
I conclude by suggesting that tradition and families go together in the Army. I totally reject the suggestion that they are a hindrance to the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in the Chamber today. He was present during the debate in the summer. He and I are "Helvetophiles" because we spent a happy evening at the Swiss embassy. He and other Members of your Lordships' House may know that Switzerland is not entirely a land of sophisticated cities, towns, industries and factories but that it consists of hills, mountains and rural areas. If the noble Lord, Lord Saltaire, and other Members of your Lordships' House would accompany me to the hills and mountains of the Graubunden and Davos they will discover the enormously fierce regimental pride of the Swiss Army in serving with their families, friends, relations and neighbours. They train, exercise and work extremely hard together. Furthermore, in Switzerland there is a unique relationship between my regiment, the Scots Guards, and the 54th Battalion from Basel land. Oddly, that came about before the war. I have met many members of the battalion from Basel land and know that they are immensely proud of the relationship. They continually stress that the Swiss Army and the British Army have an enormous tradition, without which both armies would be much the poorer.
I conclude by saying that the British Army is the best. I repeat the words of Mr. Rudyard Kipling:
"But it's 'Thank you, Mister Atkins,'
when the hands begin to play".
I hope that they will play properly; but if they do begin to play, I hope that we shall have—and I am confident that we shall—the protection and support of the Minister.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that I wish to claim the position of number one in humility as I have not served in the Armed Forces at all and, indeed, this is the first time that I have contributed to a defence debate. Also, I thank my noble friend for introducing this Motion.

1519
Nevertheless, I hope that my civilian experience has some relevance to the debate this evening. I am a delegate to the WEU and I spend much of my working life in Russia where I am involved in the oil industry in Western Siberia. That link to defence is not as far-fetched as it might sound, as in our operation we own and run some 400 vehicles, all of which are of military specification and all painted green, and my Russian colleagues never tire of reminding me, in their typical avuncular Russian way, that all the vehicles which carry our pipes out to the oil fields used to be missile carriers and they could easily be used again for that purpose.
Yesterday I was in Paris as a member of the Political Committee of the WEU, where Russian parliamentarians gave us a presentation on their aspirations to join the WEU. Clearly that prospect is a long way off, but it shows that there is an ever-growing momentum for greater dialogue and co-operation in Europe and, indeed, beyond.
Greater co-operation will inevitably affect the development of our Armed Forces. With the exception of Northern Ireland, about which we have heard quite a lot this evening, it is difficult to imagine British troops acting alone. We are far more likely to be acting in concert with our allies in NATO, in the WEU, in the Commonwealth or, indeed, in the UN. Even humanitarian operations will require some support from host governments.
One of the major questions which the strategic defence review must address, therefore, is the likely nature of any future collaboration. Will it be an operationally integrated force of land, air and sea forces under an integrated command structure, or will it be collaboration with self-sufficient units operating side by side with our allied counterparts?
As the pressures for enlargement of our international structures grow, so do the opportunities for ever-greater military duplication. Operational requirements and national pride have naturally favoured national forces which are complete in themselves. But is that the most efficient arrangement for the future? Do we really want the duplication which exists already among our NATO allies to grow further as NATO expands?
Incidentally, it is the experience of the commercial sector that corporations grow precisely to eliminate the duplication of resources and to take advantages of economies of scale. I make a general point but I believe that it is profound. The consequences of that question will affect the development of our international institutions and, indeed, our Armed Forces.
I wish now to turn to a related topic—Europe's defence and aerospace industry. My right honourable friend Mr. George Robertson, speaking on 6th October, said that it must either rationalise or die. I believe that he is right in saying that. The Americans have tackled that problem. Over the past three years, 15 prime contractors have been whittled down to just three—Boeing Douglas, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Hughes. Each of those prime contractors is bigger than all the European defence industries put together.
1520
I am glad to say that the WEU is looking at that problem, but the time for action is now. My right honourable friend was quite right to warn: rationalise or die.
Lastly, I wish to return to the subject of homosexuals in the Armed Forces, a subject on which I know many noble Lords have strong feelings. At the outset I should say that I believe the Government's approach to be entirely appropriate and the question of operational effectiveness is at the heart of the issue rather than questions of decency or privacy. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I have never served in the Armed Forces, but I have worked on oil rigs as an engineer in many parts of the world. On oil rigs, many people work in cramped and sometimes dangerous conditions, not unlike those found in the Armed Forces. I say that with some confidence, as many of the men whom I worked alongside had come from the Armed Forces and it is no doubt the similarities in the living and working conditions which attracted them to work in the oilfields. But I have never heard or received any complaint or even reference from anybody working on an oil rig that he felt somehow vulnerable to homosexuals or insufficiently protected by the law from homosexuals. Indeed, to me, that idea is quite ludicrous.
As regards the operational effectiveness of the oil rig operations with which I was involved, the issue has never arisen. In the time that I worked on them and in my now more elevated position, that has never arisen as far as I am aware. Why do the Armed Forces believe themselves to be peculiarly vulnerable? I really do not know the answer to that question. I look forward to receiving an answer.
In conclusion, I welcome the Government's Strategic Defence Review and look forward to the results. I congratulate the Government on so scrupulously meeting their manifesto commitments.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I welcome today's debate even though it is really about policy-making rather than policy. The debate in another place last week centred on Gulf War illness, the expansion of equal opportunities, diversification and the search for a foreign policy baseline among many other connected issues. I want to dwell mainly on the defence industrial base, on diversification and Gulf War illness.
I am very glad to hear that the Government want to keep the defence industrial base looking healthy. However, before going further into those issues, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and his right honourable friend in another place, for their continuing support for the all-party defence study group's parliamentary visits to our defence units and establishments.
A number of us were privileged recently to visit HMS "Montrose" in exercises at sea off Plymouth during her shake-down for her operational tour to the South Atlantic and to take up guardship duties in the West Indies, presumably to relieve HMS "Liverpool" which I believe is there already, as the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said. I pay tribute to the very high quality

1521
and dedication to duty of that mix-manned ship's company. It is clear that we are now reaping the rewards of more than a decade of forward-looking investments in equipment, training and smart procurement, originally master-minded by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Levene, and his successor, Malcolm McIntosh, who is now back in Australia. If the Government can make procurement smarter than it is already—and I believe that there are US techniques available for doing that which are already being employed—I welcome that. However, I hope that the UK industry remains competitive.
HMS "Montrose" is an efficient and happy ship and a great credit to—dare I say it in the presence of noble and gallant Lords from the RAF and the Army?—the Senior Service.
The defence industrial base now responds competitively and rapidly to the requirements of the Armed Forces and provides through-life support for its products. The gap between supply and support has narrowed and while industry gets closer to the front line, the reserve forces increasingly populate industry. I am glad to see that there are some 5,000 firms supporting the Territorial Army. Clearly, the right balance must be struck between in-house self-sufficiency in the field and contracting out, but I hope that defence strategy will continue to develop support services so that industry's role can be perfected.
My own experience in the Trident field, which was very much allied to that of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has convinced me that the problem is not how much should be contracted out to get better value for money, but what is the additional cost of contracting services in when the design, supply and refit expertise of these platforms and weapons in Trident lies almost wholly in the hands of industry. What we can pride ourselves most about is the fact that the underwater warfare capability of the Royal Navy has reached unprecedented levels of fighting efficiency and must stay that way. As I understand it, the new generation Astute class will never need refuelling during its lifetime—that, of course, raises a policy-making issue—and I hope the strategy for submarines (and they are all nuclear now) will continue to be industry led.
I believe that the successes at Faslane for industry were readily acknowledged by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the submarine Syncrolift designed and supplied by a Rolls-Royce subsidiary is a world winner. The largest one first installed at San Pedro, California has been sold to a Malaysian company, enlarged, reinstalled at Johore to lift 24,000 metric tonnes—and that is very large indeed—and was commissioned last April. It is a remarkable export with no export licensing hang-ups. Nevertheless, I welcome the Government's efforts to encourage defence exports. I hope that they will continue to do so.
If we look ahead to the new generation of nukes, I hope that the Government will be open about whether they should be designed for mixed manning. If any public consensus is needed on defence issues, it is surely needed most of all on this issue where men and women might be shut up in a submarine on patrol, going round the world for months on end. It is a very important issue.
1522
I move on now to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which masterminds the mix of investments needed in defence concepts, feasibility, demonstrators, project definition and trials. Its remit is to harness science and technology to defence. I really do not see how the agency can profitably turn its efforts into the reverse direction to spin off ideas when it is geared to spinning them in. Previous attempts to do so through defence technology enterprises (DTE) did not thrive as there was no market for cast-off technology.
If the KONVER programme—the Commission's in Brussels—is already feeding diversification money into UK industry, then it might make sense to suck these grants into the UK via DERA, which is best placed to formulate projects based on disseminating its skills. The DERA already competes for commission contracts in the R&D framework programme, but if it succeeds it will have to spread the results to other EU member states and that does not help to strengthen the UK industrial base. KONVER (1) grants to the UK in 1993 totalled some £18 million, and KONVER (2) grants in the current round are £113 million. So I wonder why we need a diversification agency. If the Government want to build on the activities of DERA, why not let it mastermind some of the projects for KONVER grants as it is well placed, as the largest contract research organisation in the UK, to win work from the Commission and thus spread its skills exclusively into UK firms looking for diversification. I shall not say any more, but I look forward very much to reading the Green Paper when it is published.
I turn now to Gulf War illness, which is causing increasing concern to the MoD and the National Health Service. I do not know what the numbers are or what the balance is between service and ex-service sufferers, but my guess is that the number of ex-service sufferers is growing thus bringing special treatment needs. I welcome the Government's emphasis on helping the veterans.
Speaking from personal experience in another field, where women receiving radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer were injured, the Department of Health commissioned a report to make an assessment of the optimum management of sufferers and the current availability of specialist services for such management. All interested parties, including patient advocates, were brought round the table under the chairmanship of a very determined consultant (Dr. Jane Maher) to knock heads together. The outcome of the report was that clinical oncologists were identified at all NHS regional centres to whom GPs could refer sufferers for special treatment of the delayed onset of devastating adverse cumulative effects.
I hold up the report—Management of adverse effects following breast radiotherapy—for noble Lords to see. Although I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, took the hint from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, in her Starred Question on Monday 3rd November, he did not go far enough. Can the Minister give the House an undertaking that he will examine the needs of the Gulf War illness sufferers with Sir Kenneth Calman, the Chief Medical Officer, to find a way of commissioning a report on the management of adverse effects following

1523
immunisation treatment against chemical warfare agents? I am not trying to put words into the noble Lord's mouth, but the adverse effects have delayed onset and are cumulative and very debilitating. I am sure that the noble Lord would have the support of all sides of the House for taking such action.
As I have been so closely connected with aspects of Trident, I shall indulge in some speculation. What has changed in the last decade is the accuracy of weapons, which has increased so dramatically that it may be possible some time in the future to look at deterrence in a different way. Whereas, in the past, the explosive power made up for lack of accuracy, we now see in the extreme that the US Brilliant Pebbles project relies on using the kinetic energy of a projectile and absolute accuracy to destroy ballistic missiles in flight. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, ballistic missile defence is still permitted; there is no treaty in force to prevent it.
However, while the long-range nuclear deterrent capability remains in Russia, I believe that we cannot afford to lower our guard. We now have the combined strategic and substrategic nuclear deterrent, but we must be very cautious about how and when we trade away our deterrent strength. I hope that the strategic defence review will not be flawed by concluding that because we have relegated the Cold War mind-set to the past, we assume that the Russians have, too. Like the IRA, they keep their weapons just in case. We cannot relax our deterrent strength until decommissioning is activated, verified and seen to have been completed.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the Eurofighter programme, but before I do so perhaps I may also express my welcome for the opportunity which this debate has given us to cover a wide range of issues. In his opening remarks the Minister made reference to the large commitment which the Armed Forces still have in Northern Ireland. Yet within the next six months we hope that there may be an agreed solution to Northern Ireland—in which case, one hopes, the large numbers of forces devoted to supporting the civil power can be reduced. I should like to be assured that there is no chance whatever that, should that commitment be reduced, there will be a subsequent call to reduce the size of the front line; or, indeed, that the spin-doctors might point out that it has been possible to reduce the serious undermanning because of any reduction made in that way.
The knives are out once again to try to kill off Eurofighter. But many of its detractors display an unforgivable lack of understanding of the procurement process and of how air forces operate and have to do so within tight budgets. Eurofighter is a mega-cost programme. Overall it is even more expensive than Trident. Costs have risen. Critics like to blame these on technical problems and to infer that British industry is not up to the challenge of coping with the problems. The reality is that there have been major delays which have had nothing to do with the advanced technology, however demanding. Changes of national governments,
1524
the complexities of multinational collaboration, to say nothing of changes in the threat to this country and our allies have all had their impact on progress. It does no justice to the debate, or to the critics' case, to belittle and dismiss those factors. Each in a different way has been responsible for some of the perceived delay. I welcome any explanation from the Minister as to how SMART procurement procedures will be able to tackle those other kinds of problem.
Not for the first time in the life of this programme, and others before, has the assertion been made that buying United States aircraft would be cheaper and operationally better. But why should those who make such claims be allowed to ignore some of the ground rules of defence procurement? It is true that previous administrations, going back to the 1960s, have flirted with total reliance on the United States industry. We bought F4s, the Phantom, when TSR2 was scrapped. We bought, and continue to buy, Hercules transport airframes. We had no option but to buy the Chinook helicopter. But in the late 1970s, when the operational case favoured the purchase of Boeing's AWACS, the government of the day decided to adopt the Nimrod AEW solution. It proved unworkable at reasonable cost, and a switch to AWACS was forced after considerable delays and at greater costs overall.
Since then Cabinet level directions about the importance of European collaboration have pointed us towards the Tornado and now Eurofighter. The reasons, of course, are not far to seek. They are employment, technical competence, and some assurance, if committed to action on our own, that we could field operational forces. These are crucial arguments; we cannot just ignore them, and nor should the critics in reaching their views. Nevertheless the current thrust of the "Eurofighter is a white elephant" lobby is that we must switch horses to the United States Joint Strike Fighter, the JSF. But this case is full of holes. JSF is required, the critics now argue, because Eurofighter is too pedestrian. Only a year or so ago critics were saying that Eurofighter was too high performance for our post-Cold War needs and that we should settle for the less capable F18. The common thread joining these extreme views is the promotion of United States products. I offer no prizes for guessing the "who" or the "why" for that.
While every delay in the Eurofighter programme is added in, there is an implausible assumption that the yet to fly JSF programme will run to time. We have to think only about the serious delays being experienced in obtaining our new C130J transport aircraft from the States—a far less technologically demanding programme than JSF—to appreciate that the case for JSF is not being made on a level playing field. Even if JSF were to run no later than is now claimed, it could not be in Royal Air Force front-line service for the best part of a decade after the Eurofighter. To the already sunk cost in Eurofighter would be added both the fly-away cost of JSFs and a healthy levy to cover our share of the R&D and support costs. I seriously doubt, in comparing Eurofighter and JSF costs, that there could ever be any saving, except in terms of in which years the major expenditures fell.

1525
Another favourite argument of the "knockers" is to claim that the programme, first conceived in the period of the Cold War, is now ill conceived because of the strategic changes in the threat. Further, it is claimed that no attempts have been made to review the operational need for the performance which Eurofighter will provide. Without such ridiculous assertions the critics have little on which to base their own wild ideas. Of course a programme of the size and cost of Eurofighter is reviewed and revalidated, and not by us alone but by all the countries involved.
All who are informed about air power agree the need for air superiority if joint operations are to be mounted successfully against air opposition. We cannot assume that our foe will not have acquired modern fighters or that he will pose no air threat to our ground forces. We hear and understand the arguments for a high intensity capability ably put by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, in his excellent maiden speech. But such ground forces are of little value without the air components which contribute to the joint overall capability, and for that we require not just superior aircrews and training but superior aircraft and weapons too.
Those who would ditch Eurofighter say that we could let others provide our air superiority—by "others", they can mean only the United States. But as in the early stages of the Bosnian tragedy, and perhaps elsewhere in the future, our two governments will not always agree about the actions to stem the crisis. No British government are yet prepared to plead operational inadequacy as their reason for refusing to participate with United Nations or other international forces. I hope that they will never have a need to do so. It would not be in keeping with the Government's international outlook mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks.
Eurofighter, with which I had a great deal to do to convince the Cabinet that it was the right decision a decade ago, is still the best possible option for the Royal Air Force and for the roles for which it was devised. The German Government's support reinforces our own decision to proceed with Eurofighter and to exclude it from the strategic defence review. The politico/military case for Eurofighter is as strong today as it was a decade ago during the Cold War.
I am delighted that it has proved possible to combine in one design the potential to dominate in air superiority and in those offensive support roles which are so critical to joint operations and to the overall joint capability of our forces. Such a combination brings great economies in training and support costs. Few of the criticisms I have read appear to give such factors any weight at all. Why does "knocking" copy emerge at specific points in the procurement decision-making process? That could make an interesting research study. The more vociferous the opposition and the more often it relies on innuendo and fabrication, the more confident I am that the case for Eurofighter has been made and tested by those who must find the money as well as by the Royal Air Force. The aircraft is performing extremely well in trials. Pilots—and I have spoken to some of the RAF pilots involved—are full of praise for the aircraft. They see it as a winner.
1526
I believe that the Eurofighter will fly, operate and sell in a way which will confound its detractors. It is a real winner. It deserves this Government's strong continued support.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we all welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, in his present position on the Government Front Bench. We wish the noble Lord and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, well.
I should like to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his moving and brilliant maiden speech. He makes me wish that we had more field marshals. I wish, too, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, on his brief and pertinent maiden speech. I agreed totally with it. I hope that we shall hear often from both noble Lords in future.
I expect it is a long time since some of your Lordships put your money into tins labelled church collection, presents, holiday money and sweeties. If you only had threepence or sixpence a week and one penny had to go into the church collection, it took a long time to fill some of the other tins, especially if you borrowed. The Treasury is in essence no different from one's pocket money. It is finite. There is only as much available as can be squeezed out of one's parents or the taxpayers' pockets.
Because this Government are failing to meet their manifesto commitments on health, more money is needed. So where do the Government look'? They look at defence. Although defence of the realm must always be of primary, indeed vital, importance to all governments—for without a realm to defend there would be nothing left to govern, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lady Park said—in peacetime or when there appears to be less of a threat, that priority sometimes fails to be taken into account.
It is said that last year the Ministry of Defence overspent by £168 million and that therefore that money will have to be cut from current income. So, alas, the strategic defence review seems to me to be no different from Options for Change or any of the other defence reviews over the past 10 years. Nor does it even have the excuse of a peace dividend. Like all the others, it is a euphemism for cuts. I fervently hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be able to prevent the greedy tentacles of the Treasury from emptying the defence tin.
Our services are splendidly equipped. I support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, on the urgent need for the Eurofighter. All our airmen are waiting for it with bated breath. I hope that we shall have it as soon as possible. We have a great deal of very good kit. I am glad that the Minister made reference to the shortage of spares about which he so courteously wrote to me. But how different are the engine rooms of ships now to those in which my aunt worked, as I reflected when the defence study group visited HMS "Montrose" last week. There were banks of computers, but no stokers, firemen or trimmers with harrows. As, in simulated warfare conditions, we watched young men and women of an average age of 20 climb down ladders

1527
in the near dark to stem a leak or dash into a chamber filled with choking smoke to extinguish a fire, we were, as always with our services, impressed by their courage, high level of training and dedication. When we had coffee with some of the young rates later in their mess, without any officers present, we asked them what their complaints were. They had none. That says much for their officers and for the morale of the whole ship.
The defence study group has been lucky enough to meet personnel of all our three services in all sorts of places. We have always been impressed by their dedication, their professionalism, their high morale and their courage. This weekend I shall march with the war widows and the Royal British Legion at the Cenotaph to honour all our British men and women who gave their lives in the service of their country. This Saturday and Sunday, Remembrance weekend, and indeed the 11th November, when, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the heart of our nation stands still, are proud and emotional times for us all. They did not fail us. I hope that we shall not fail their successors.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney:My Lords, the traditional congratulations to the Front Bench and to maiden speakers are sometimes simply traditional. On this occasion they need not be so perfunctory. I found the speeches interesting. It is not entirely untrue to say that we hope to hear from the maiden speakers again. I shall have something further to say about the speech of my noble friend Lord Gilbert in a moment. Nevertheless, he was up to his usual form. He is always engaged in his subject. I did not disagree with much of his speech. But what struck me about the debate is the massive lacuna: the most important issue in the world has been entirely omitted. Some noble Lords do not even know that it exists.
I wish to point to a couple of issues in that connection. The General Assembly of the United Nations is wholly opposed to the nuclear weapon. There is a conflict between the Security Council, on the one hand, which consists largely of nuclear weapon owning countries, including ourselves, and the General Assembly, which consists largely of members who do not have them. Unless we are prepared to take more seriously the elimination of the nuclear weapon, those members will be keen to get hold of the weapon that we apparently hold so dear.
Putting that lacuna to one side, it has been an interesting and important debate. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, in regretting the absence of more field marshals, in particular the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. As a member of the Canberra Commission, he supported the Government's position—although until now we would not have known it was the Government's position. But that is the Government's position: they want to eliminate the nuclear weapon. We have not heard that from anyone yet. All we have heard is that we shall hang on to Trident. But Trident, too, will have to go, however much my noble friend is in love with it. If we achieve general elimination, as I sincerely hope we shall, Trident will have to go.
1528
As my noble friend said, the debate is on the Strategic Defence Review. I made a couple of contributions to the review. One was as a member of a group consisting mainly of Labour Members of Parliament who made a collective demarche. Noble Lords who are interested might like to dig out that document from the massive contributions that are in the cellars of the Library. All the contributions to the defence review under the Government's commendable open policy are available to us and will, I believe, shortly be available to the public as well.
I also wish to make a personal contribution, for which perhaps I may be forgiven since personal matters have been mentioned by one or two other speakers tonight. I begin with a summary of what I said to the defence review in this way. At the end of the war in Europe, as a flight lieutenant in the Royal Air Force, I was posted to south-east Asia command and to an operations unit in Rangoon. When I arrived in Bombay on my way to Rangoon, on the day the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, after the initial rejoicing was over I came to see the deed as a war crime of holocaust magnitude and my view has not changed.
The nature of war changed during the last war. It is no longer a war between armies primarily; it is also a war fought by armed personnel, armies, against civilians. At the beginning of the war our belief in the preservation of the distinction between civilians and armed personnel was absolute. I remember that a little booklet was circulated among commissioned people in all the forces pointing it out and saying that the distinction had to be preserved. By the end of the war, possibly instigated by the Germans, we were blockbusting. If noble Lords imagine that the blocks were all filled with men, they are entirely mistaken. They were mostly women and children because the men were in the armies and so on. We set fire to German towns, we burnt out women and children.
The major distinction between the situation at the beginning of the war and the end was exemplified in Hiroshima when we deliberately destroyed men, women and children, non-combatants, in that town. That is a reversion to barbarism and something ought to be said about it in any defence debate. There was a reason for the old-fashioned rules of war which we have discarded: it was that we wanted to preserve the world and people. If we revert to barbarism and massively kill civilians, we shall ultimately destroy ourselves. After the initial rejoicing was over on 6th August 1945, I came to see that deed as a mark of a deterioration in mankind's behaviour to man which, if not arrested, would finish us all.
Enough of that. All I need add is that ever since I have done my best to advocate nuclear disarmament. Since I became a peer in 1981, I have strained the tolerance of the House—as no doubt I am doing now—by raising the subject constantly. I shall continue to do so as long as I have the strength.
Some progress has been made since the end of the Cold War. The nuclear weapon was once lauded; now it has few friends, one or two here tonight. The previous government must be credited with rationalising the

1529
situation in this country by concentrating the so-called deterrent in the Trident fleet. Members of that Government might not object to their position being described as changing in the 18 years from enthusiastic support of the nuclear weapon to reluctant retention. I hope I am right in thinking that one or two of them, if not most of them, feel that to be the position.
That is part of a world change of view during which distinguished military leaders in many countries have reached the conclusion that the nuclear weapon must be eliminated before it eliminates our civilisation.
I am glad to be able to say that the new Government have made further progress, exemplified by the following Written Answer from my noble friend Lady Symons, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office and thus the spokesman in this Chamber. On 11th June this year, at col. WA 81 of Hansard, in answer to my Question she said:
"We strongly support the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. We believe that adequate verification and mutual and balanced reductions are necessary elements in that process. We remain to be convinced, therefore, of the wisdom of a pre-set timetable for nuclear disarmament".
On reflection, I am not sure that it would be a good idea to regard a "pre-set timetable" as essential. It is certainly beyond the power of any single government to guarantee it. On the other hand, a timetable in the sense of a considered aspiration, rather like the railways since privatisation, is certainly necessary in this context.
Non-nuclear powers must be able to hope that the move towards elimination is serious if they are to cease seeking to become nuclear powers themselves. Perhaps the best way to achieve that might be to announce in the Strategic Defence Review the intention to seek a meeting of the five declared nuclear powers for the purpose of agreeing a common elimination policy and first steps towards its fulfilment, as recommended by the Canberra Commission. Otherwise, it may be curtains for all our hopes.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it has been my privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, on many occasions in defence debates over the past 16 or 17 years. I do not know why. It is not my intention to take him on because I have many other, more important, matters to talk about. I suggest to him that there were very good answers in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Ironside. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, might care to read them; he may find that some of his comments would not be helpful in preventing war. The point about warlike equipment of all kinds, including nuclear armaments, is that they should deter people from attacking when they otherwise might. In a sense, use of weapons is mainly to prevent war, but those weapons must be good enough to enable you to fight, if you have to. It is as simple as that.
I thank the Minister for this debate, which gives us a further opportunity to contribute to the defence review, following our debate on 2nd July initiated by my noble
1530
friend Lord Vivian and after an exchange of letters with the Minister during the rest of that month which I much appreciated.
I do not have much to add to my letter of 15th July, which I emphatically endorse. For the benefit of this debate I repeat briefly that I emphasised the need for the retention of a balanced fleet for major operations. That is because we have a greater need for a navy of adequate size and quality than most other major powers. Something like 80 per cent. of our trade is by sea; we have a need to safeguard our world-wide dependencies, and we have treaty obligations more widely spread than any other nation except perhaps America. To that end we also need land and shore-based air forces of adequate size and quality to complement our Navy in joint operations, as well as providing for the defence of the United Kingdom and continuing operations such as those NATO is conducting in Bosnia.
Our most important contribution to the rest of the world is the maintenance of peace. We do that through our contribution to deterrence and operations with three armed services of the very highest quality. We still do that, notwithstanding the fact that, sadly, my friends in the last government reduced those forces to their lowest manpower levels since 1934, as the Minister mentioned in his speech. Even allowing for the increased efficiency in men and materials since the 1930s, that must be the last time that our forces are reduced. We must now only consider strengthening those forces both for our own benefit and for the benefit of the world at large.
Those who would put a gloss on looking after other people instead of just ourselves must consider that our Armed Forces are of the highest order in the world and better than any other, notwithstanding the difficulties under which they operate. It is the best contribution that we can make, and where our skills really lie, that we use them to the benefit of the world at large.
Careful study of the speeches of the Secretary of State for Defence and other defence Ministers in the Commons defence debate on the 27th and 28th October, complemented by the speech of the Minister in this House today, gives one hope that this Government thoroughly appreciate the need for armed forces of the sort I described. It will however require great resolution on behalf of all Ministers—not just defence Ministers, but the Prime Minister and all below him—because of other demands on national resources to which many noble Lords referred. Important it is and vital it is for the defence of this country and the safety of the world at large.
The Secretary of State for Defence said at col. 619 on 26th October—the Minister said the same in a slightly different way—that the Ministry of Defence assessment is that we are likely to be most directly involved in defence problems in Europe, the Gulf or the Mediterranean. That may well be the case now and perhaps for the next 10 or even 20 years. I noted that the Minister set a timescale of 20 years on this review so that may be relevant.
It may not always be so. For instance, one can foresee that in the middle of the next century China may be the threatening force. Perhaps it may subordinate Indonesia

1531
and threaten directly Papua New Guinea and Australia. By that time perhaps Australia may have distressed some of us by becoming a republic, but it is highly unlikely to have left the Commonwealth.
Although, in answer to a question at col. 610 on 27th October the Secretary of State for Defence said that the Commonwealth is not an institution with a defence dimension, I cannot believe that the people of this country would ever wish to desert a Commonwealth country threatened by external aggression. Surely, even in 2040 or 2050 many good, solid British citizens will have heard of the immediate and splendid response to our call for assistance by the Australians and New Zealanders in both the First and Second World Wars. Whatever happens, we must always be ready to repay that debt.
Assistance to those countries and New Guinea, if relevant, will almost certainly be spearheaded by the Royal Navy. The ships, submarines and aircraft required for the Navy at that time must be provided long before the date of the unexpected conflict. That relates back to the 20 years that the Minister put on the review that we are now considering. As he agreed when we debated this matter last, it is a long timescale to keep the Armed Forces of the day properly provided for right into the future.
The Navy has the special value of being able to provide a deterrence force, wherever required in the world, and to build it up to the size required to show suitable aggressive intent. An example of that was in the summer of 1958 when the King of Iraq was murdered and the Iraqi revolutionary forces were suspected of wishing to invade Kuwait. The Far East Fleet was called upon to detach a carrier force to strengthen the deterrence provided by the land and air forces of the Middle East Command and, if need be, actively to defend Kuwait. The bulk of the Far East Fleet, including the carrier force, was visiting Japan at the time that happened. The destroyer which I commanded had just completed a work-up in Singapore. I was ordered to proceed with despatch to Bahrain. When there, the Commander-in-Chief East Indies Fleet, whose command I joined, showed clearly during the subsequent weeks that my ship was an advance element of a major force which arrived about five or six weeks later. Kuwait was not invaded.
I give that as a typical example of what the Navy can do to stabilise the instability mentioned by the Secretary of State for Defence in col. 610 on 27th October and repeated by the Minister in his speech today. He said that instability is the enemy that can threaten the peace and prosperity that we now enjoy. I agree with that assessment. Indeed, I trust that the Government will continue to have well-equipped, modern, capable Armed Forces, able to counter the problems that we are likely to encounter in the 21st century.
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble kinsman Lord Mottistone. If I can pick out one phrase of his excellent speech it is when he said
1532
that we must strengthen our Armed Forces for the good of the world. I entirely concur. If that means that we must spend more money on our Armed Forces after the defence review, then so be it. We must find cuts elsewhere.
I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and for something else as well. Since he has been representing his great department of state in this House I have received full, prompt and detailed Written Answers and private letters when I have asked questions which he has not answered in his place.
To my regret, although I was a serviceman for over 20 years, I never served in the noble Lord's department of state. I assure the noble Lord that I will keep my questions to a minimum. I hope we realise what stress the civilian staff and military servicemen in that department undergo in defence of this nation and what they do for us. They are very highly skilled and important people.
I enter the debate, like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, with some trepidation. All around this Chamber are men with very great experience ranging over 30 or 40 years. My experience was half of that. I speak for this reason. In 1815 after the Napoleonic wars and also in 1918–19 after the First World War, we cut our defences and our Armed Forces. We said that the threat was over. We could do that then because we had the most powerful navy in the world. Now, of course, we do not have the most powerful navy and it is also necessary to consider the air dimension, the missile dimension and the nuclear dimension.
We have heard two very powerful maiden speeches. I salute the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. I declare an interest. I believe that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who served under him in a headquarters—the headquarters of the Second Infantry Division, North-East District, in 1985 when he was the commander. He showed in his speech wisdom, clarity of thought and clear direction. One other quality also came through: humanity. As a serviceman, I wished and I expected that the senior officers under whom I served had humanity. The noble and gallant Lord, although he lives in the north of England, is Constable of the Tower of London, one of the most senior appointments that the sovereign can give. It is said of course that old soldiers never die: they just fade away. I hope that the noble and gallant Lord, having made his speech today, will not fade away from this House but that we shall hear him many times in the future not only on defence-related matters but on the other range of interests he has.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renwick. The noble Lord is a mandarin from the Foreign Office. He says that we have a vital role to play in the expansion of NATO. I entirely agree. I was delighted to hear those remarks from a very distinguished member of the Foreign Office.
There is another tribute I should like to make and perhaps I can tell a brief story. Once I left the noble and gallant Lord's headquarters in York, I went to command an armoured car squadron on the inner German border south of Brunswick. In that squadron there were 100 soldiers of all ranks, ranging from myself as a

1533
major to troopers and craftsmen, and including the light aid detachment which belonged to my unit. I learnt with a certain amount of horror that all my officers, like myself, were unmarried. I discovered that the wife of my squadron sergeant major was in England where she stayed working at her full-time job, and so her husband was unaccompanied. It was the wife of a quartermaster sergeant who, over two years, looked after the wives and families of that sub-unit. Her task was unpaid. Of course there were staff assistants, welfare workers, chaplains and indeed doctors; but at the end of the two years she would take nothing, not even a small present, and I had to order her husband, the staff sergeant, to accept a present for both of them. The wife of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, did the same job as my staff sergeant's wife did for 40 years. We take our servicemen's wives and families too often for granted.
I have three points to make, and I will speak from the micro rather than the macro; first, as regards the married quarters, accommodation and welfare. I shall also talk about recruiting and military training teams. The noble Lord the Minister was not in his place on 11th July. There were probably 500 of your Lordships present in the House. It was what one could call a full House. And it was an electric debate—of a sort I hope we never have again. We were arguing about the married quarters; whether they should be sold, how they should be privatised. Whether or not we liked the decision, it was taken and we must look forward. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, we have heard all three service chiefs in the last two months address the parliamentary all-party group. We questioned those gallant and distinguished officers about married quarters. It would appear that the jury is still out. I informed the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is not in his place, that I was going to quote from his speech on 11th July. He said:
"From the sale proceeds we shall have an extra £100 million (ring-fenced) to enable us to get on with the upgrading exercise as we would wish to do".—[Official Report, 11/7/96; col. 470]
I understand that only 25 per cent. has been spent on refurbishing accommodation. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will inform us by what date he expects the £100 million to have been spent and whether he is satisfied that our servicemen are also satisfied with the condition of the married quarters. If we do not put that matter right and our servicemen vote with their feet, all that we have discussed about the macro side will not come to fruition.
On recruiting, we learn that the services are about 10,000 short. I shall concentrate on the Army and remind your Lordships of a remark made in 1945, an exhortation by that great Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, to the miners:
"If you produce one more ton of coal each I will give you a better foreign policy".
I expect that the chiefs of staff will be saying to the Minister, "If you can produce another 5,000 soldiers, pay for them and bring us up to full strength, we will give you a better defence policy". Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us how the recruiting measures are working.
1534
I wish to refer to military training teams. I have had the good fortune to live in eastern Europe—the Baltic States—at a very interesting time. The military training teams are worth their weight in gold. We have been told that we have one of the best armies in the world. That is correct, but it does not go far enough. The Finns and the Swedes, when they see the work of our military training teams, say that we have the best army in the world. It would appear that we do not have sufficient training teams in eastern Europe. The Minister informed me by letter that in 1998 we shall have six individual officers and 10 short term training teams. I hope that he can give a projection of what he would like to see deployed in the former Soviet occupied nations of eastern and central Europe.
Before I conclude, I wish to tell your Lordships a tale. As a second lieutenant I was encouraged to join the Royal United Services Institute. I needed no encouragement. I recall the final sentences of a speech by a Norwegian officer, General Gunderson, who was chairman of the NATO committee. He said:
"No free and independent democratic nation has ever regretted spending quite a lot more money on defence than it can afford when it has seen the results of what has happened to those countries which have neglected their defence forces".
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will bear General Gunderson's remarks in mind during their most important and necessary strategic defence review.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long but I want to say a few words about defence procurement. I was interested that the Minister mentioned this subject in his opening speech.
I think that I am a fairly broad minded chap, and normally when I see the headline in a paper "MoD wastes billions", I do not get too excited about it. However, I was shuffling through my papers at the weekend trying to find something original and constructive to say and my eye fell on the Sunday Telegraph of 10th August 1997. The headline was "MoD wastes billions in buying blunders". I wish to share a little of the article with your Lordships. It says:
"Brigadier Bill Kincaid, the MoD's former Director of Operational Requirements (Land), says that massive bureaucratic duplication, lack of financial accountability and an often mediocre staff without the necessary expertise or experience is costing the taxpayer billions in mismanagement.
'In terms of bureaucratic overheads, we are still living as we were at the height of the Cold War,' he said. 'The procurement budget is £9 billion a year and we waste £2 billion of it' … 'I cannot think of a single project I have ever known that came in on time".
The article continues:
"decisions are taken in triplicate—or even quadruplicate—by a plethora of scrutiny committees, each with up to 100 members. This means that massive amounts of paper work are generated at every stage. 'No one is accountable for his decisions—some people have power without responsibility, and others have responsibility without power'".
Noble Lords will have heard that catalogue of disasters and will judge the information for themselves. Can the Minister confirm that the report is not too accurate—I am aware that some press reports can be far from accurate—and can he tell the House in the clearest

1535
possible terms what action the Ministry of Defence has taken to make sure that the situation is not continuing and will not recur in the future? The article was written three months ago and so there should have been plenty of time to sort things out.
Under the heading "Catalogue of failings", the article also says:
"Some staff were seriously underworked, with one wing-commander finishing his day's work by 10 am".
I thought that 10 a.m. was pushing it a little. I know, having worked in the Ministry of Defence, that "morning stand easy", which is when a cup of coffee comes round—probably without sugar and without milk, as these are stringent days—is usually at about 10.30 a.m. So for this Wing Commander to have left at 10 is really moving things. When I first read it I thought that it must have been 10 p.m., which is more the experience that I had when I was there. But no, it was 10 a.m. So that gives one a gauge of what might have been going on. I seriously hope that the article is inaccurate.
I want to say a few brief words about the Royal Yacht. I apologise in a way for bringing up the Royal Yacht in a defence debate, but the Ministry of Defence is the lead department dealing with the Royal Yacht. However, I have a great sympathy with the Ministry of Defence because I do not believe that the Royal Yacht should be on its budget at all.
I declare an interest. I speak as the chairman of the All Party Royal Yacht Parliamentary Group. I wish to express gratitude to the Minister. He has been extremely helpful and courteous. The gracious way in which he has answered our questions has been very much appreciated by the group. We are extremely grateful for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who has recently joined your Lordships' House from another place, handed me a letter which he received from one of his former constituents in Wales. I should like to share the letter with the House. I do so in the light of the sad decision taken by the Government on 10th October to the effect that we shall have no Royal Yacht in the future. My group regards that decision as both ill-judged and short sighted: ill-judged, because of the prestige the yacht provides for the British nation around the world, not to mention the boost she gives to British exports and the stimulus she gives for inward investment; and short sighted, because a new yacht would last for 50 to 60 years, so that the on-going effect would be considerable.
The letter is signed by a Marina Davies, who signs herself "British housewife". It reads as follows:
"Dear Sir, I am writing to voice my disgust at the decision to withdraw the 'ROYAL YACHT BRITANNIA' from service, by the 'FACELESS BUREAUCRATS' AND 'ENEMIES WITHIN'.
I have been one of the 'SILENT MAJORITY' who has sat back and viewed this from afar, expecting someone else to do something; to stop the demise of our traditions and the things we hold dear.
What else is to be discarded before we become grey, boring 'EUROPEANS'?
1536
I fear for the 'ROYAL FAMILY'. The Queen has had taken from her 'THE ROYAL TRAIN', 'THE QUEEN'S FLIGHT', 'THE KING'S TROOP', 'SCOTLAND' and 'WALES' and now 'THE ROYAL YACHT'."
The letter continues:
"Enough is enough".
Some noble Lords listening make quibble with the Queen losing Scotland and Wales. She has not quite lost Scotland and Wales yet, I hope, but the thrust of the letter will be clear to everyone in the House. I must confess that I agree with the thrust of the letter. It is sad that we are in this position. In our opinion the Royal yacht should be a flagship for Britain and a symbol of British excellence. That is how we see her. It is a tremendous shame for the country as a whole that she is not being replaced.
I have only one further point to make and it refers yet again to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. When he spoke about morale he mentioned ethos. Ethos is a curious thing and not generally spoken about in your Lordships' House. It is a complex matter and it has a spiritual dimension. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord that ethos is very important for long-term morale. But it does not affect only the Navy, Army and the Air Force because ethos affects the whole nation. So it is very important indeed. Whether we know it or not, each of us is made up of body, mind and spirit. By and large we expend terrific effort on our bodies: we preen them; we go to the gymnasium. I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, is sitting on the steps of the Throne. He runs here every morning in trying to get himself in good shape. It is good to see him here. We take great trouble with our bodies. We take some account of our minds, but not a great amount. We go to concerts; we listen to talks and take part in erudite debates as we are doing now. By and large, we take no account at all of our spirit and spiritual life. If noble Lords can imagine the three legs of a stool that one is sitting on, one can see that it is distinctly wobbly.
My message is that ethos—a spiritual dimension to all our lives—is extremely important and that includes the services. It is worth making that point because my own spiritual life was at rock bottom when I was in the Navy for over 20 years. It did not exist.
Lord Mottistone: What a shame!
Lord Ashbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, says, "What a shame". It was a shame. Twenty years is a big slice out of one's life. It was not until I lurched into the jungle of the City that I stumbled into a church very shortly after leaving the Navy and the penny dropped. I support the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and congratulate him on raising this rather unusual but very important ethical dimension for the services. I have said enough.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I point out to him that the King's Troop, which is mentioned in the letter that he quoted, still exists. It is dead worried, but it still exists.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I certainly found the noble Lord's comment about a wobbly stool of interest. I also noted his support for the comments made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, about ethos. I hope to make reference to that in my speech.
I shall try not to detain the House too long. I am conscious of the great expertise of noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I wish to make a number of comments as regards the future arrangements for European security and to reflect my interest in the Royal Air Force.
There are varying degrees of enthusiasm for the second pillar for the development of the common foreign and security policy in Europe. The most enthusiastic countries seem to be those which are unlikely to be able at this time to make meaningful contribution to European security and defence. Their record may suggest that they have not made much of a contribution in the exercise of international authority nor that they are capable of doing so in the service of the alliance of which they are a part.
For many years, and until a few weeks ago, I was heavily involved in the Council of Europe and Western European Union parliamentary assemblies. Both of them are ill-reported but they serve essential roles. The Council of Europe proved to be the agency and mechanism by which the transformation of Europe politically was achieved. The Western European Union is the only European defence organisation. It is a modest organisation and perhaps too easily satisfied and content to be ill-regarded or ill-rewarded. But it is certainly to be hoped that it does not disappear rapidly in order to facilitate the transfer of defence responsibility to Brussels at this stage. I am not suggesting that the second pillar is undesirable, because it is desirable. It must have adequate defence capacity if Europe is to make a proper contribution to any pretence of independence from the umbrella of the United States.
Over the years I have found that the existence of the WEU, while essential, was often infuriating. I was reminded of that just after the Gulf War when we received at the assembly an excessively triumphalist report. It was odiously triumphalist. It attracted a long list of speakers. I believe that I was the last speaker. I could not refrain from pointing out that many member states had sent more parliamentarians to speak in the debate than personnel to contribute to the victory they were odiously triumphalist about. Indeed, my caution was justified when one considered what happened in north and south Iraq immediately after the conflict and the critical situation which still exists as a result of the maintenance of the Saddam Hussein regime.
We were equally dissatisfied—I believe that this applied to the Conservative as well as the Labour Members of the delegation—when we considered the blockade in seeking to enforce the arms embargo in former Yugoslavia. The Royal Navy was zealously and effectively conducting the embargo at sea, while British parliamentarians saw for themselves wholesale breaches of the embargo on land. Members from both sides of our delegation raised this matter with the chairman of
1538
the Council of Ministers, who was the then Italian Foreign Secretary. He agreed that there was wholesale evasion and that the Council of Ministers possessed a great deal of information about it but told us that it would remain confidential. It was a pity that the British Government at that time allowed it to be confidential. Our sailors, effecting the blockade at sea, must have rejoiced at that!
Then came the question of the need to provide military personnel in support of the peacekeeping role in former Yugoslavia. When we looked at the contributions offered by the member states we found that a majority were prepared to make contributions of stretcher bearers and traffic policemen but not to send combat personnel. But they were happy for Britain and France to fulfil that role. We did not feel that that was acceptable.
It meant that barbarism and horror continued for far longer than was necessary. The worst problem and conflict in Europe for half a century went on longer than it need have done. That horror may now have stopped but it did not come to at least a temporary conclusion until a greater resolution was shown and the United States was involved. One of the reasons why it stopped was the use of air power.
In his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, made reference to the precision with which weapons can now be used. Those noble Lords who attended the last presentation of the Royal Air Force in the Grand Committee Room around March of this year were able to see for themselves that significant development. We saw film of precise targets being clinically destroyed without collateral damage or casualties. It is a very significant development indeed. It is one which those of us who recognise the horror of war might welcome. If one can teach politicians lessons without killing people, it is a very desirable development.
Four years ago I was asked to prepare a report for the WEU Assembly on the capabilities of western European air forces. I embarked on that report—I did the work myself—and when it was completed I felt that my principal recommendation should be that there should be a follow-up report which should commence in not less than two years. The reason for that recommendation was that I discovered far more inadequacies than I had expected. As I do not want to speak for too long, I shall mention only a few.
There was a marked lack of combat and strike all-weather capacity; a marked lack of marine patrol aircraft; and there were inadequacies in intelligence gathering in reconnaissance and in air-to-air refuelling. There was an astonishing inadequacy in capacity to fulfil the logistic role because most member states would rely on other people's civil aircraft, yet that is not an intelligent approach if one is to move forces into hostile environments or rugged terrain. There was certainly cause for concern about the number of flying hours allowed to air crew in most member states. Some aircraft were obsolete. That is not surprising because if aircraft do not fly they will last rather longer. But it did not provide much reassurance about the capacity of western Europe's air forces which were content—or

1539
rather, their governments were content—to rest for ever under the United States umbrella. That is why I suggested that there should be a follow-up report.
However, one air force stood out—our own. Flying hours in Royal Air Force squadrons were far higher than those of our partner states. The RAF continued to bear astonishing commitments, despite contractions—and they were all the more astonishing given the size to which the air force has shrunk.
Last year it was time to start to prepare for that follow-up report, so I tabled a question to the chairman of the Council of Ministers. It took a while to get a response, which was that the information required was now confidential. I asked the new chairman of the Council of Ministers earlier this year at a meeting in Paris whether the council was prepared to give information in order to allow comparisons to be made with the 1994 report. The answer was no. I asked Mr. Cutileiro, the Secretary General of the WEU, whether the Secretary General's office could secure that information and the answer was that the only information that the WEU could obtain was that relating to the forces which had been directly allocated to the WEU. That is grossly unsatisfactory.
That means that rather than there being an attempt to contribute properly to European security, there was instead an attempt to hide behind inadequacy and to be content to rely on the United Kingdom and the Royal Air Force to bear the burdens. Indeed, burdens have to be borne because Europe has to have the capacity to respond when a response is needed.
I believe that the previous government were woefully weak and woefully inadequate in their response to that approach. I hope that our present Administration will take a more realistic view. If they are to conduct a defence review—I believe that it is right to do so—they must include in that review our relationship with our partners and the contribution that we can fairly ask them to make. One of the reasons that our partners want to see a common foreign and security policy is that many of them recognise that the European defence industry has to change. It has to match the enormous changes that have taken place in the United States with the Boeing and Lockheed mergers. We have to see a consolidation in European defence. They want their share of the loot and it is important that the United Kingdom, which has been bearing the burden for a very long time, does not lose out commercially.
As I have said, I do not want to speak for too long, and my final point relates to ethos. I was rather angry a few years ago when I suspected, as did other Members of the other place, that rather unfavourable comments about the Royal Air Force had been planted from the political offices of the Ministry of Defence. On several occasions, there emanated leaks which compared the Royal Air Force, to its disadvantage, with the Israeli Air Force, without any attempt being made to demonstrate that the Israeli Air Force operates within very much narrower terms of reference and flies in a rather more cordial climate than that to which the Royal Air Force must be accustomed. That seemed to me to be mischievous.
1540
Then came the Bomber Hams memorial event and then came the public comment following the anniversary of the Dresden air raid of early 1945. Each time there was severe public derision (almost) of the Royal Air Force and a belittling of the sacrifice which the RAF made in the Second World War. Given that this debate is being held just before Armistice Sunday, it is appropriate to make these points. We cannot expect the leaders of the services to adopt a political role. If their services need to be defended in a political and public context, it is for Ministers of the Crown, elected to bear that responsibility, to defend the services for which they have responsibility. However, we saw no response from Ministers of the Crown when the Air Force was held up to derision by ridiculous historic analysis. The Dresden air raid was awful, but at the time it took place—and it took place under political instruction—the concentration camp ovens were still operating, German children aged 13 were being equipped to shoot at the advancing allied forces and the dust had scarcely settled from the explosions of the V2 missiles in the south-east of England.
That is why the criticism of the role of Bomber Command in the Second World War, as was repeatedly allowed with a ministerial squeak from the last Administration, was an outrage. For about four years, Bomber Command was the only major offensive from the West in the Second World War. Had those operations not taken place, had not bomber crews flown night after night, the German aircraft industry would not have been producing fighter aircraft to respond to the allied operations and Bomber Command's sacrifice; it would have produced hundreds or thousands of bombers and the House will understand the targets that those aircraft would reach. Not only that—Bomber Command ensured that at least 1 million German soldiers and at least 100,000 German guns were retained in Germany. If Bomber Command had not flown, would the Normandy invasion have been certain of success?
That is history, but it is the sort of thing to which the noble and gallant Lord, Field-Marshal Lord Inge, was referring when he talked about ethos. Ethos is important. As I am sure that my right honourable and noble friends will recognise, ethos has to be maintained. It was scarcely maintained by the previous government when servicemen, such as RAF aircrew and those in the advanced engineering formations, spent vast proportions of their time leaving their families behind in married quarters—and the particular interest the previous government showed in married quarters was in how quickly they could flog them off and for how much. I hope that we shall not see the same approach from my right honourable and noble friends. I do not think that we will.
The review is necessary. It has to be realistic, but it has to grasp the history, reality and ethos in a way which the previous administration found impossible.
8 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing this important debate to take place and to take forward the views of this House on the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). Like many others, my first

1541
military experience was through the Combined Cadet Force (CCF). The CCF, the ATC and the ACF have always been an important part of military recruiting. The figures show that 49 per cent. of all Army officers, 26 per cent. of all naval and air force officers, 20 per cent. of soldiers and 24 per cent. of airmen have received cadet training. Although no statistics are available, I believe that experienced cadets tend to be better recruits. It is important to catch young people at an early age, for once they have decided on a career and started on the road to their careers they are lost to the Armed Forces. That point was made at a meeting earlier this week with the Chief of the General Staff which some of us were fortunate to attend. At a time when the Army finds it difficult to recruit and to attract good quality recruits surely we must continue to nurture this pool of high calibre people. I should be interested to find out whether the ethnic minorities are properly represented in the cadet forces. If that is so, it may go a long way to solving the problem of underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in the Armed Forces at a later date. Can the Minister inform the House whether the CCF, AFC and the ATC are covered by the SDR?
Today, the British Armed Forces are much smaller than those in which I served in the 1970s. Defence spending now stands at 2.7 per cent. of GNP, which is the lowest level since the mid-1930s. The professionalism and dedication of the Armed Forces is now superb, if not better than in the 1970s, and British forces are presently held in as great if not greater esteem by the world. It is we who demand that our forces have great professionalism and dedication; it is we who demand greater performance from our forces than virtually any other country in the world. At present 28 per cent. of our forces are on tour, preparing for a tour or are recovering from a tour. That places great pressure particularly on the senior ranks and their retention. They are the backbone of our Armed Forces. Their families are equally important, as the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, has already said.
We demand of our troops the ultimate: to give their lives in the line of duty if necessary. Therefore, one would expect the Government to treat the Armed Forces with respect and care, attempting always to maintain their high morale. So, why has the Treasury used the gimmick of fining our Armed Forces £168 million? I hope that the Minister will not try to persuade the House that that fine is due to the MoD's overspending of last year's budget and thus lay the blame on the previous government. If he does so, can he say whether other overspending government departments are to be fined? This fine appears to be more about Treasury spending priorities than anything else. One wonders whether the Government will be able to conduct the SDR, which is meant to be policy led, for it appears that the Treasury is in the driving seat and the SDR will be resource driven.
Further, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury will reimburse the MoD for the cost of the UK's peace implementation force in Bosnia from the Treasury contingency reserve in the current year? With a £168 million so-called fine and no reimbursement for Bosnia, the MoD will have lost nearly 2 per cent. of its budget this year. In addition, in his speech at the Royal
1542
United Services Institute for Defence Studies (RUSI) the Secretary of State for Defence stated that the Government were committed to finding a further 3 per cent. saving on defence spending. That could result in a 5 per cent. loss of the MoD budget, or greater if it is to be fined again.
The task of deciding upon the strength of the Armed Forces has historically proved to be most difficult. Many of the recent conflicts since the Second World War in which our troops have fought such as Korea, the Falklands, the Gulf War and Bosnia have been sudden and unforeseen. At a time of greater instability in the world than we have experienced for some time the Secretary of State's RUSI speech provided some comfort by restating the Government's manifesto promise to
"retain a strong Defence against post-war security challenges".
The noble Lord, Lord Healey, once said:
"Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled we have no houses, no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders".
The Secretary of State himself believes that our forces are severely overstretched. He also wrote in the Independent in July 1997 that,
"slashing our defence spending … would in my view completely remove our capacity to mount operations such as those in Bosnia".
He also believes that the previous Government's cuts have left serious holes in the capabilities of our Armed Forces. On top of this, the Labour chairman of the Defence Select Committee in another place has stated that,
"any further cuts will endanger the defence of the realm".
How is it that the Government can fine the MoD £168 million this year and reduce its budget year on year on year?
I hope that the SDR will deal also with the possibility of allowing HIV high risk groups, such as homosexuals, into the forces and to serve in the front line. In an active combat situation and in the harsh environment of the front line, troops will have scratches, cuts and even battle wounds. One will be faced with the problem of dealing with injured comrades. Combat injuries can be very messy. In that difficult combat environment it is not difficult to envisage bodily fluid contamination. If one is in the front line, one has to tend to comrades' injuries. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that someone may catch something like HIV, which is a deadly virus. It is not morally correct to expect our troops to face such a problem. One can expect them to die for their country. Does the Minister expect our troops to be placed in this position or will he reduce the risks by preventing HIV high risk groups from undertaking front line duties?
Recently, I was fortunate to be included in an all-party defence group visit to "HMS Montrose", a Type 23 frigate. Aboard ship we were able to see at first hand, among other things, mixed manning and to speak to those officers and sailors who had experienced this for some six years. In a situation in which men and women worked together in the cramped quarters of a ship, and also lived often for long periods in cramped dormitories, albeit segregated, the reaction was

1543
extremely positive. There appeared to be a very positive atmosphere aboard. We saw women perform tasks to a very high standard, in some cases probably equal to or better than men. However, we were also a little surprised to discover that a female member of a gun turret crew of three was forbidden to lift an eight stone shell on health and safety grounds. We also saw another woman struggling to perform other heavy duties. I ask the Minister whether the SDR will consider enforcing a gender-free fitness test in all the teeth Armed Forces, similar to that which I understand the Army intends to introduce in April 1998.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether the findings of the SDR are to be introduced in Parliament rather than, as is the wont of this Government, leaked through the media first.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I believe I heard my noble friend say that he hoped the Government will allow people who are HIV-positive into the forces. If I understood him correctly, did he not mean he hoped they will not allow it?
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, to clarify the position, I was saying that I hope they will not allow HIV-positive people to be in the front line where they will possibly be in a position where other members of their combat team are scratched and bruised and there could be a risk, therefore, of bodily fluids contaminating their fellow combatants.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this is the first major defence debate in this House since the start of the new era heralded by the election victory for Labour and the country in May. It gives us the opportunity to restate with the utmost conviction Labour's commitment to the effective defence of the realm. That commitment has always been there, because we are the party of the people. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel reminded the last government only last year, the first duty of the Government is defence of the realm. I offer my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lord Gilbert for introducing this debate in such a clear and lucid manner.
It is said that it is a wise man who learns from his mistakes. I would suggest that it is probably better to learn from the mistakes of others. In this connection we can see that it did our defence capability no good for our industrial base to be decimated as it was by the Conservative Government in the early 1980s; we can also see that the decimation of our ship-building industry and our merchant marine fleet made us vulnerable. The poor relationship of the previous government with our European partners has meant that the rationalisation of major industries on a European-wide basis has been inhibited. It has meant that major defence collaborative projects such as the Eurofighter have suffered due to international bickering and a lack of co-operation.
We need to remember that it was the trade unions—the so-called enemy within to which the last government used to refer—that ensured in the early days of the
1544
Eurofighter development project that it was not killed off. I would also like to pay tribute to British Aerospace for their foresight in starting the early development of what became the Eurofighter project as a private sector initiative. I welcome the positive attitude that our new Government have shown in the development of future large aircraft by means of European bases.
There are other areas where we can learn from the errors of the previous administration. For example, there is the matter of small arms. In the late 1970s the then Labour Government realised that there was a need for a small calibre small arms system for the Armed Forces. They commissioned the Royal Ordnance factories to develop and manufacture such a weapon system. That programme was called the SA80: small arms for the 1980s. However, a Tory Government was then elected and they engaged on an ideological programme of privatisation. They wanted to sell off one of the pieces of family silver—the Royal Ordnance factories—but the Royal Ordnance factories were worthless unless they had a forward order book. Therefore, the Tory Government authorised the production of the SA80 system, which subsequently proved not to have been fully developed. I suggest to my noble friend that there is probably ample justification for determining that we should have a new small arms weapon system for the millennium.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I was the Minister who authorised the development and production of the SA80 weapon system to which he refers. His account of what happened is quite wrong.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I hold to my version of those events and I am sure that many members of our Armed Forces would agree with me. Only last night I was speaking to some members of the Royal Marines, who were very clear in their understanding of the situation.
As I was saying, we have a new Government with a commitment to effective defence, with a commitment to European collaboration, and we have the prospect of a long-term future in government. I would suggest that this new Government is best placed to initiate the necessary programme which I believe is required for a small arms weapons programme.
I have attempted to highlight how we can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors. Time prevents me from expanding at length. I could talk at length about helicopter procurement. Perhaps my noble friend would like to say a few words about that in his summing up.
Before I conclude, I shall say a few words about nuclear weapons. In my opinion, it was rather sad that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made the remarks that he did. I can understand why he did so—because he obviously had a prepared speech and he had not listened too closely to my noble friend's introductory remarks. My noble friend was very clear in spelling out that, yes, we are committed to retaining the nuclear deterrent of the Trident system, but we also have another commitment and that is to seek the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons.

1545
That is a new commitment which the previous government would not entertain, and that commitment I welcome. In saying that, I ought to pay tribute to the work of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The members of that campaign may feel that they have not succeeded in achieving their objectives, but I believe that the whole world owes them a debt of gratitude. If they did not exist, the risk is that we would have had the use of nuclear weapons during the 1960s and 1970s. We should all recognise that that would have been a terrible tragedy and a catastrophe for the whole world. Therefore, we owe a debt of gratitude to people like my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney for the determination they have shown in publicising the terrible barbarity of nuclear weapons.
I finish with these words. Twice within the last 18 years under the previous government we sent our young men to die in battle. They did a good job and we are immensely proud of them. However, I hope that, with the combination of effective defence capability and our ethical foreign policy, and by working in partnership and co-operation with other countries, we can help to build a new world order that prevents conflict and ensures not only our safety but the safety of our Armed Forces.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, we have already heard this evening that the Army is over 4,000 men under strength. I must admit that I thought the figure was closer to 5,000 than 4,000, but I accept the Minister's figures. One of the ways of dealing with this is retention of the more experienced servicemen. It also means that it is essential that injured or sick servicemen should receive the best treatment possible promptly in order to be returned to their units as quickly as possible.
Where service means that the health of men's families is not properly looked after, it is likely that these men will leave the Army. I understand that there are problems with the provision by the Health Alliance of care for our troops and their families in Germany. I am advised in this matter by one of our medical officers in Germany who has experience of the current situation. I hope that the Government will consider these concerns in their defence review.
I am advised that the majority of specialties are now provided by German medical consultants, with whom there is a clear cultural and language barrier. It is also clear that the German doctors, who are all civilians, have no understanding of the associated military medical interface.
I am told that certain out-patient services, notably dermatology, plastic surgery and ENT surgery, are supposedly still provided by UK civilian or military consultants. There are, however, no scheduled clinics in those specialties and Army doctors therefore have no routine access to those out-patient clinics. Due to the absence of UK consultants in Germany and the fact that the German consultant system is not organised in the same way as our familiar UK system, it is virtually impossible for doctors to access specialist opinion in difficult or complex cases. That is especially so as any
1546
medical liaison with the remaining UK military hospitals is discouraged by the Health Alliance and the Health Commission.
I am told that waiting times for the specialties that are provided by the Germans are reasonable. However, waiting times for the specialties such as dermatology, plastic surgery and ENT surgery are appalling as there is just no clinic available because there is no consultant. Some patients have been waiting for five months for appointments.
Rather seriously, I understand that certain garrisons in Germany have no access—I repeat "no access"—to an emergency ophthalmology service. The consequence for a soldier or dependant suffering major eye trauma that requires immediate specialist treatment out of normal working hours does not bear thinking about. I am informed that there are major differences between German and UK national drug formulas. Many drugs prescribed to our soldiers and their dependants by the German doctors are not familiar to our UK doctors. No doctor should prescribe or advise any form of treatment with which he is unfamiliar. In fact I am told that it may be illegal for one of our doctors to prescribe a drug with which he is not familiar.
Major problems therefore arise when a German doctor advises treatment with which UK doctors are not familiar, and vice versa. Again, that is especially dangerous when patients are discharged from German hospitals outside normal working hours. UK doctors are frequently put in the impossible situation of having admitted a patient to hospital for specialist care and then being unable to carry out the recommendations of the specialist because they are unfamiliar with the advice that is given. That strikes me as being thoroughly unsatisfactory. I am told that it seems clear to most of our doctors with the British forces in Germany that soldiers and their dependants are clearly unhappy with the current provision for their medical care. That is manifest by the fact that formal complaints are at an all time high. The technical service provided by the Germans is not in question; rather, it is the cultural differences, administrative indifference and apparent lack of awareness by the health authority, the Army and the MoD that such problems exist that is at the root of their concern and discord.
I suspect that if patients were aware of things such as the lack of an emergency opthalmology service, dermatology consultant and many other purely medical issues, the Army's existence in Germany would become untenable as so many soldiers with families would be leaving and moving home.
There are also problems for service families in the UK. Those problems are caused by families following husbands and fathers who are posted from one NHS trust catchment area to another. On posting, patients waiting for treatment go automatically to the bottom of the waiting list of the new area's NHS hospital. I know of one young child who is waiting for an operation to correct a squint. I believe that it is a minor, simple operation of putting a tuck in a muscle. She is on her third waiting list for that operation. I am told that her father has been warned that he is due to posted yet again

1547
within the next few months. Would the Minister be kind enough to look into ways in which the MoD could co-operate on that matter with the NHS because it is unsatisfactory? Servicemen are posted whether they like it or not. Civilians often have a choice as to whether they move, particularly when there is illness or difficulty in the family.
On a different subject, and one upon which I shall end, in his opening remarks the Minister indicated that the proportion of GDP that we now spend on the Armed Forces is the same or less than we were spending in the mid-1930s. I hope that he and his colleagues will study their history and remember what happened in 1939. We were not prepared and not ready for the invasion of the Falklands by the Argentine forces. Neither did we expect there to be war in the Gulf. We should have strong enough, large enough and well-enough funded defence forces to be prepared for any emergency.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, there has been much publicity recently about the Army's initiative to increase the number of ethnic minorities within its ranks. It is a subject upon which the Minister touched. In particular, the Household Cavalry, my former regiment, has been the target of some misleading press attention over its record in that regard. The issue is being addressed seriously by the Household Cavalry. The regiment regards the recruiting of members of ethnic minorities as its top priority apart from its operational commitments. The regiment is also determined to ensure that any latent racism is firmly stamped out so that those who join are treated in an equal way to other soldiers. The Household Cavalry is keen to recruit anyone of any persuasion and cultural background who is good enough.
In the context of the Household Cavalry Regiment, it is appropriate to note the extraordinary degree of professional skill developed in the regiments of the Household Cavalry and Royal Armoured Corps and to say something about the high cost-effectiveness of that capability. Manoeuvre warfare, which is the operational posture of the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, is the most demanding of war-fighting scenarios. All elements of our mobile forces have a part in the ARRC, but the cutting edge is formed by our armoured regiments.
The tank regiments are presently equipped with Challenger 1 which will soon be replaced by Challenger 2, arguably the best tank in the world and one with demonstrated capability of hitting six separate targets all at different ranges in just 26 seconds. The training needed to enable those regiments to use such powerful equipment to its full effect is arduous and complex. Owing to the shortage of young officers, the tactical handling of tanks at troop level is often the responsibility of a sergeant or corporal. So technical skill and leadership among the non-commissioned ranks has to be of the highest standard. The result of this professionalism is that armoured troops can be and are employed across a full spectrum of military operations. They are frequently deployed as infantry in Northern
1548
Ireland, take their part in the rotation of forces throughout United Nations commitments, such as that in Cyprus, and will be found keeping the peace in Bosnia.
These regiments are in constant cycle, taking them from their primary employment in the ARRC through the other roles developed by necessity and circumstance. In the past, that has included such diverse employment as acting firemen on Green Goddesses and then back to their tanks and reconnaissance vehicles. It is only the very highest standards of leadership, discipline and training which make this commendable versatility possible. This professionalism is also demanded of their families, who have to cope on their own for extended periods.
We tend to think of all three services in terms of their primary equipment; frigates for the Royal Navy, combat aircraft for the Royal Air Force and tanks for the Army. That is the effect of making the tank a kind of totem or symbol of military power and thus the first target whenever cuts in defence spending are considered. The tank fleet has already been reduced by 47 per cent. since 1989.
In terms of value for money for taxpayers, and as a compliment to the oft-berated procurement system, it is worth noting that the development of Challenger 2 cost only one- eighth of the cost invested by General Motors to bring the Vauxhall Vectra into production. The reliability and durability targets for Challenger 2 are three times as great as those for Challenger 1. The operational performance measured in terms of the ability to acquire and hit a target is about five times greater. Despite this dramatic enhancement in performance, Challenger 2 costs in real terms less to develop and the same to buy as its predecessor.
Tanks may be a symbol of military power on land, but they are really an integral part of a capability enabling operations as diverse as the armoured battle to drive the Iraqis from Kuwait at one end of the spectrum to peacekeeping operations in Bosnia at the other.
What is quite certain is that the new and ultra-sophisticated equipment now available for our Navy, Army and Air Force cannot be properly used without the highest standard of prolonged training and those being so trained must be individuals of the highest calibre in terms of intelligence, courage, discipline and morale. It is because our soldiers, sailors and airmen fulfil these requirements that we can be confident that Britain's Armed Forces, despite being smaller than they have been for many decades, make our country one of the most formidable fighting powers in the world.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a good but a long debate. Those of us who are winding up must be hesitant about detaining your Lordships too much longer. I hesitate to speak, having heard so many noble Lords who have served in the Armed Forces. Not only did I not go beyond my school CCF but for many years have been professionally employed as a critic of diplomacy and military forces and on occasions as a lecturer to them. I have been made most aware of the scale of the transformation of international order during

1549
the past 10 years because since 1988 I have lectured annually to the Royal College of Defence Studies on the shape of European order. Each year I have to tear up my lecture and start again. I well remember two years ago the Russian general who had arrived as a new student rising to contradict my analysis of the situation in Russia. That really is a world transformed from its position in 1988.
I must apologise to the House for having to spend 40 minutes away from the debate. I chaired a sub-committee at 4.15 p.m., which meant that unfortunately I missed two maiden speeches. I was particularly sorry to miss the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, who was one of the insiders who most helped me as an outside critic during the 1970s and early 1980s.
I wish to touch on four themes which appear to be underplayed in the defence review. The Minister said in opening that the defence review must be foreign policy led. Unless we have a foreign policy led defence review the military dies the death of a thousand cuts. I regret that the Government have not yet published a Green Paper setting out their foreign policy objectives because on the basis of that we could define the military forces that we need. We need a new concept of Britain's place in the world; we need a broader definition of security; we certainly need a new concept of European order; and the Armed Forces which we need should follow from those concepts.
The scale of the transformation since the end of the Cold War has been immense. We lack a national consensus, even a widespread understanding in the public outside, of what that transformation implies for Britain. It was largely taken for granted in the debate that we have a shared understanding of Britain's place in the world; that we are a great power with a global reach; and that we have particular responsibilities. The students who I teach at the London School of Economics were born between 1975 and 1980. With luck, their personal memory goes back as far as 1985, but for most of them the Cold War is an historical memory and Russia is a distant country about which the main fact they know is that it does not work. The idea that it could be a threat to us is almost unthinkable to them. We must provide for them a rationale of why Britain needs a defence policy and what we believe the threats to be.
To my great surprise, I heard my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Judd, say that it is difficult to think of any nation which is more vulnerable to world insecurity than Britain. I thought to myself, "Well, within NATO, I would say Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey for a start". If one goes outside NATO, there are a good deal more. The noble Lord also spoke of Britain's international responsibilities, which I always thought was code for "The white man's burden".
A number of noble Lords said that the threat of Chinese expansionism was something for which Britain had a particular responsibility. I must ask why. If there were severe problems with Arab expansionism in the Mediterranean, would we expect the Indonesians and the Japanese to contribute to a Mediterranean fleet?
1550
I believe that the answer is probably no, we would not. Therefore, the issue of the role that we have militarily in the Far East seems to be open to question. We must be careful not to extrapolate from the past and to assume that we go on defending it in the future.
I remember as a graduate student hearing Michael Howard give a talk at Chatham House in 1966 on Britain's role east of Suez. A lady in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but you haven't explained how Britain is going to defend the vital trade route between the Persian Gulf and India". Michael Howard replied, "Madam, if you could explain to me why we should defend it and against whom I should be able to answer your question as to what we might need to do so". There is a danger of assuming that we should continue to shoulder our historic burdens of 20 or 30 years ago when we need to look 20 or 30 years ahead.
My good friend the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, talked about the Swiss Army. Last month I took part in the Churchill Symposium in Zurich and heard a great deal about the crisis of Swiss national identity. It is partly that they have an army which holds the nation together, but they no longer know why it exists because no one threatens Switzerland. By the time we came to the end of the evening and the Mayor of Zurich thanked Coutts for paying for the dinner because, as he explained, Zurich is now almost bankrupt and the problems of how one funds Swiss public expenditure, not to mention Swiss military expenditure, are clearly acute, I was left with a real sense that Switzerland is looking vigorously to the past and is extremely unclear where its future will take it.
Earlier this afternoon, I asked a Starred Question on the teaching of British history in English schools. That seems to me very much part of the same thing. What is our national identity? How do we explain to our younger generation who they are, and why? That is very much part of how we need to rebuild a consensus on defence and foreign policy.
We have heard a certain amount in the debate about the recruitment of ethnic minorities into our Armed Forces. I remember two years ago being with my family in the military cemetery in Monte Cassino with a British tourist party and seeing there a young Asian couple, clearly on their honeymoon, from Birmingham. They were looking lost in that cemetery which, as far as they could see, had absolutely no relevance to them. I went over and showed them that four of the 10 pillars in the middle of the cemetery were inscribed with the names of Indian regiments. They were totally unaware that there had been Indian regiments fighting in the British Army in Italy in the Second World War. That seems to me to be part of how we need to rebuild a sense of national identity on defence and foreign policy without which we cannot have a successful defence review.
We need also a broader concept of security, conflict prevention, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked, the re-orientation of the military, in which the Secretary of State for Defence has been doing some sterling work, particularly with the Russians, democracy building, education and information. That suggests that our defence policy is part of an overall effort in which the

1551
know-how fund, the BBC, the British Council and the Foreign Office Chevening scholarships are all part of an effort to widen security in the former socialist world.
I should love to see a foreign policy annual White Paper and an overseas budget. That is not that radical an idea. I can remember James Callaghan, as Foreign Secretary, suggesting it in April 1974. Unfortunately, he never carried it through. Therefore, how imaginative are this new Government prepared to be? I suggest that for a successful defence review, they need to think much more widely.
Moreover, we need a new concept of European order. We are moving at rapid speed towards the enlargement of NATO by April 1999, in 18 months' time, and we have committed ourselves to a second and potentially a third round of the enlargement of NATO. It seems to me unavoidable that that will transform NATO. It cannot maintain what has been the traditional sense of a North Atlantic Treaty when it becomes much more European and when it extends its reach over what was previously Warsaw Pact territory.
The enlargement of the European Union, sadly slow and not going as fast as it should be, is also a security issue. Consolidating democracy and giving prosperity to those countries makes them much less of a threat to us. If one is talking about potential threats, it seems to me that the countries between Italy and Greece—not just Bosnia but also Yugoslavia, Albania and Macedonia—and the problem of how we handle relations with Turkey, which is a very important but not fully democratic country while being a fellow NATO member, are very much part of how we consolidate our future security. Therefore, we need to make more of European defence co-operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said that it has not worked very well. I wish that he had said a little more about the useful role which has been provided by the Nordic units, the Spanish and Dutch troops in Bosnia, and the Dutch troops in particular who were left high and dry in Srebenica, and now at last also the German troops in Bosnia. We must make European defence co-operation work. Britain must play a much more active part in that.
The question of what Armed Forces we need follows from that. Reading through the press cuttings, I kept coming across the phrase, "We don't want to be a pocket superpower with a bit of this and a bit of that". Clearly we want a military which is more European. As the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said, that means more "jointery", more interoperability and more concern about how we make the best of co-operation with others.
I was struck when reading the RUSI journal of August by the statement:
"The argument is not whether Britain should allow her forces to be fully integrated into multinational formations or not. but the level at which that integration should take place".
That is a discussion again in which we have not really yet engaged in Britain. We have not yet symbolised the extent to which our forces are already caught up with other European countries. I have been pressing hard, for example, that on the 50th anniversary of the Scots
1552
Guards marching down the Champs Elysées, we should again have a guards regiment, if the French will encourage us, marching down the Champs Elysées on 14th July. Next year is also the 50th anniversary of the Berlin air lift. That provides a splendid opportunity to symbolise the transformed relationship between the German armed forces and ourselves. That is the sort of thing that we want this new Government to do. I offer all these suggestions to the Minister in a spirit of constructive opposition, which I am sure he knows my party is willing to provide.
Therefore, we need a more European and regional reach and not so much a global reach. Ocean Wave was wonderful, but I am not quite sure what they were doing in the South China sea and I am not sure that we necessarily want to get caught up in the defence of the Spratly Islands or Paracel Island, if it really came to it. Do we want a long-term professional military, or should we look rather more at a greater emphasis on part-time soldiers and reserves? I find myself readily teaching Norwegian and Finnish graduate students who have spent a year as part-time soldiers in the Middle East in various peace-keeping forces. Perhaps there is room for us to look at that sort of thing as well.
I conclude by saying—and repeat—that in the absence of foreign policy direction the review will unavoidably be Treasury led. If we cannot provide a new rationale, public support for the current level of spending on defence will shrink. Therefore, a defence review must be first and foremost a foreign policy review.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, from his long experience of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, reminded your Lordships that it is not the custom for later speakers in a debate to congratulate maiden speakers on their performance. He then proceeded to ignore his own advice and I shall do the same. I should particularly like to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, described it as constructive. I would add the word "inspiring", and I do not believe that that word is misused.
I had the opportunity two years ago of visiting the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, in the Embassy in Washington with a Royal British Legion delegation at which we discussed the problems of Gulf War disease. I believe that the change in attitude towards problems in the Gulf has arisen from the time of that visit. Belatedly, two years later, I thank the noble Lord for what he and his staff did for us.
During the course of this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Vivian produced a comprehensive and almost all-embracing review of the problems facing the defence of this country at present. There is very little I can add to that. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on his fascinating speech. I do not agree with all he said but, goodness me, it was good to hear it. We also had the benefit of the enormous and almost unique experience in the medical affairs of our Armed Forces of my noble friend Lord Swinfen.

1553
It is a pleasant custom in your Lordships' House for noble Lords who follow on in a debate to thank the introducer of the debate for introducing this important and relevant subject, whatever it may be, and to express the hope that the House will be better informed at the end of the debate. Realistically, in expecting a reply from the noble Lord, I can express no such hope of that, however important and relevant the debate may be. It is not the fault of the noble Lord; I do not see how he is able to reply. We are sitting here a few months before the publication of the defence review.
We had a debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Vivian in July, and last week, in another place, we had a two-day debate on defence which we are told is an annual event. However, it was magnificently mis-timed in that it took place at this moment before the publication of the Strategic Defence Review at a time when both Houses and, above all, the Ministry of Defence, are in limbo waiting anxiously for the review. Unlike the last administration, this Government never have leaks. We shall remain in ignorance of what will be in the review, though just the odd whisper is coming out.
As I said, to be fair, it is not reasonable to expect anything from the noble Lord today and, except for a statement on the employment of women and the so-called "Gulf Syndrome", those in another place heard nothing last week. They cannot have expected to. In the other place the debate was largely an opportunity for a number of maiden speeches and for honourable Members to express their concern for the defence-oriented industries in their constituencies. That concern is justified because of the unshakeable belief that we are about to see a sizeable cut in the defence budget and in defence procurement.
Ministers tell us that they are bravely fighting the defence case. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will not be surprised to hear me quote his remark in another place last year, while in Opposition, although he may be surprised that no one else has done so during the debate. The noble Lord then said:
"I also happen to think that this country does not spend enough on defence".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/96; col. 506]
That statement was quoted twice last week in another place and gives me some small hope that we may today hear something of advantage from the Minister.
Nevertheless, we heard nothing—unless I was not listening; and I was certainly here—about the defence budget, nor about the foreign policy base of the review. One noble Lord spoke about weapons which will be designed in the light of the tasks that the Armed Forces would be called upon to perform. A defence policy must be designed upon a foreign policy base. As I said, we heard nothing about that and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to help in that respect.
What we have heard so far about the SDR leads me to believe that the Secretary of State has never been involved in any serious business negotiations. He has promised that it will be defence led and not controlled by the Treasury. At the same time he tells us that we cannot reasonably expect an increase in the defence budget; I hope that I never made that mistake with the trade unions. To have said that is to surrender his
1554
position to the Treasury before he even begins to talk. Of course, it is not possible for every aspect of a policy to carry priority, but many items are extremely important and it would be foolish to withdraw them from the pot until it is essential in order to save something else.
Now I come to what I would call the Raymond Chandler novel, the Mystery of the £168 million, which was referred to by various noble Lords. According to the Secretary of State, this fine on the Ministry of Defence comes as a result of the previous year's overspend (the fault, of course, of the Conservative Government), which had to be clawed back. I am afraid that he will have to do better than that in explaining it; particularly as he claims the episode as a triumph—the overspend, he says, was in fact £246 million and he has brought it down to £168 million.
The Minister for the Armed Forces, Mr. Reid, has said that a large part of this alleged 1996–97 overspend is accounted for by an earlier than expected delivery of and payment for goods and services. We do not know how much this is, nor where the rest of the overspend comes from; he has not told us. The Minister believes that absorbing the reduction will be manageable. But, in his words, it will not be without pain. How much pain, and where? From a sitting position, the noble Lord replied to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick that other departments were treated in the same way; but I would ask him, again, whether any other departments which overspent have been treated in the same way? Perhaps the noble Lord could touch on that subject in the course of his reply.
The long time it is taking to get the SDR out is causing a blight in the procurement programme in particular. Those responsible will not rush to get on with a project if there is a fear that it will be cancelled. I hope that the review will lead to smart procurement, which has been referred to, and get rid of what is known as the Downey cycle. Under this, if anyone carries out a feasibility study, he has got to have an end product. You cannot get money for a feasibility study which in the end may say that the project is not feasible. You have got to produce something even if it is not what you want.
Undoubtedly, especially as regards the logistics and background area, there are savings to be made and some may be relatively painless. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether one of the subjects to be considered is the closure of the naval establishments in Bath and their move to the new building being constructed at Abbey Wood, Bristol. Does the noble Lord agree that that would achieve a major saving, including probably 300 civilian staff? Further, have the unions been consulted on that point? I doubt whether they would be very happy about it.
Trident is to be continued, thank goodness. But there is no reason why the Director General Submarines, procuring the Trafalgar class, should not be combined with the Chief Strategic Systems Executive managing Trident. That might persuade one of the services at least not to buy a weapon—Trident in this case—off the shelf

1555
and then spend a great deal of money messing about with it. It was Trident this time, but other examples are Sea King and Phantom, to name just two.
We have been told that many savings can be made by introducing different levels of readiness in the Armed Forces. We are told—indeed, as my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth said in, again, and not surprisingly, a startling speech—that Russia cannot be a threat again within the foreseeable future, certainly two years; and that commitments can be covered at a lowered state of readiness. That may be so, but is it safe?
The £168 million is one blow to the defence budget. A further potential blow arises from the fact that no word has been heard from the Treasury about the continuation of the reimbursement from Treasury contingency reserves of approximately £250 million for the costs of running the British share of the peace campaign in Bosnia. Here I am puzzled and would ask the noble Lord to clarify what seem like two contrary comments. Within 20 minutes last Monday, I heard the Secretary of State in another place and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in this House, give different replies on the point. The Secretary of State refused to comment until the costs of the Bosnia operation were known, while the noble Baroness stated that, under the current practice, any need would fall on the contingency reserve at least until June 1998. The Secretary of State ought to be able to reach an agreement with the Treasury and his own Ministers on at least the principle of the thing. The defence budget is not expected to allow for war.
However, if I have got it right—and I am open to correction from the Minister—the defence budget is likely to be down by nearly half a billion pounds, even if the Secretary of State thinks that he has held it steady.
The Government have confirmed that the fourth Trident will be built and they are committed to the Eurofighter. Do they also commit themselves to the systems which both those weapons demand? If so, that will be a considerable chunk out of the budget, a chunk which is non-negotiable. What effect will that have on the review as a whole?
The Territorial Army is at present shaking in its boots, or rather in its non-existent Land Rovers whose absence, I understand, can be laid at the door of the noble Lord because of some problems with exhaust emissions. Also afeared are the King's Troop, the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment and all who carry out ceremonial duties.
In last week's debate there was some disagreement about increasing delays in the issue of export licences for military material. To be totally fair, I understand that the problems here do not arise in the Ministry of Defence but in the Foreign Office or the DTI. I am told that the delays are largely due to the establishment by this Government of a Foreign Office ethical desk. Under the previous Government the target was to get licences approved in 20 days. The figure is now far higher and getting worse. Companies such as Vickers, which hope to be selling large numbers of tanks to Turkey, can look after themselves as they are big enough. However, small
1556
firms are different. Hollow Extrusions of Birmingham, for instance, which has a £½ million contract to provide tubing for shells for the Turks, has been told that unless approval is quickly given, it will lose the contract. Incidentally, this contract has been in existence for years and the end user is the United States.
Paynes Wessex—which I thought had its big night last night—is seeking a follow on licence for flares for life boats. That company has been waiting for 100 days. These delays are immensely damaging to the British defence industry but they are not, to be fair, the fault of the Ministry of Defence, as I have said. It is suspected that the other offices I have mentioned are being deliberately obstructive. One end user certificate was rejected because it was written in French and another because something had been written on the back of the certificate. If applications are to be rejected, so be it, but the companies concerned should at least be told what is happening.
We have heard today from many noble Lords who know much more about the requirement of the services and service procurement than I do. Some time ago the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said that the problem in another place was that almost no one had had their hair parted by a bullet. The noble Lord has clearly had his parted by a 25 pounder. That is an important point and I hope that all Ministers and the Chancellor in another place will take note of what has been said here.
I apologise for speaking for rather too long. In conclusion, I wish to refer to a matter which has been raised by a number of other noble Lords, particularly the mafia from the Scots Guards which exists in this House. This matter is not solely regimental business but is deeply involved with the morale of the Armed Forces. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway pointed out, people in the forces are in difficulty because of the law on homicide.
Guardsmen Fisher and Wright of the Scots Guards were convicted of murder in September 1992. The murder victim who was carrying a bag and who tore out the patrol commander's radio was shot while running away from a patrol who shouted numerous warnings before firing. These events have been relayed in your Lordships' House and in another place on a number of occasions. I shall not go into them any more except to say that Wright and Fisher have now been in prison for more than five years. Last year they applied for a judicial review of the Northern Ireland Office decision that the case should not be reviewed until the end of 1998. Mr. Justice Girvan quashed that decision and ordered that the two cases should be freshly considered according to the precedents set in the cases of Privates Clegg and Thain, who were released after fewer than four years.
This year Mr. Justice Girvan ordered the Northern Ireland Office not to wait until October but to reconsider the case immediately. This was overturned in the Court of Appeal and last month the Life Sentence Review Body gave certain advice to the Secretary of State as a result of which she ordered that the guardsmen's case should not be reviewed until October 1998. I ask the Minister to tell the House what the advice was which

1557
gave rise to that decision. We are told that the Secretary of State has apparently refused to give that information. However, I ask for it again and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give it.
Last February I was given a categorical assurance in this House by the then Minister that this was solely a judicial matter and must remain so. As things stand, this assurance would seem to be being breached, albeit by a different government. There is a widespread belief, both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, that the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland dares not, for political reasons, offend her friends, Adams and McGuinness, and the failure to release the men is part of the peace process.
The decision on whether to let them out is purely a judicial matter. I hope that Mr. Justice Girvan's judgment will carry some weight, particularly if it is supported—and I do not know this—by the Life Sentence Review Body, and that the men will be released in the near future, certainly before October 1998. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord replying to the debate. He has a difficult task and a great deal to do for which he has my fullest sympathy. I wish him luck and hope that he can give many of us much satisfaction.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is an extremely difficult task to reply to a debate which has run for well over five hours and has contained so many distinguished contributions on many different subjects. I am sure that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not succeed in replying to all the points that have been raised this evening although I give your Lordships an assurance that, as on previous occasions, I shall write to any noble Lord whose points I have not managed to cover in the course of my remarks.
It is an enormous pleasure to be able to welcome to this House the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. It is one of my great regrets that I was never at the Ministry of Defence when he was in a senior position there. It goes without saying that we all look forward to his regular contributions, and as one noble Lord said, not just on defence matters. I wish to pay him the compliment of starting my remarks by referring to his speech in some detail. I am glad to say that he began by welcoming the wide consultation that the Government have undertaken on the strategic defence review. He also welcomed the fact that we understand the need to maintain the ability for high intensity conflict. I agree entirely with him that it is far easier to slip down the path from high intensity to low intensity capability rather than to struggle back up in the other direction. I take his point that we need to analyse precisely what we mean by high intensity conflict. I agree also with him—I hope he does not think it is patronising that I agree with him—that much rethinking is needed because many of the old post Cold War assumptions need to be overturned and looked at afresh.
I take very seriously the noble and gallant Lord's remarks on the defence medical services, training and our need to keep our readiness levels high. Above all,
1558
I agree with the noble and gallant Lord on the need for a period of stability for Her Majesty's Forces. It is precisely because we seek to address the question of long-term morale in the forces after a period in which their size, the expenditure on the forces and their equipment programmes have been cut so drastically that we are having this review. We are inviting not only the outside world but also members of the Armed Forces individually to write in to make their own suggestions as to the future of the services in which they serve.
It is my second great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Renwick of Clifton, to your Lordships' House. I am doubly pleased to be able to do so in light of the Bench that he has decided to make his home during his time here. It is not for me to say anything which could possibly add to the distinction of his public service. On this occasion, I join with him in his admiration for British forces. As he said, they are the most admired in Europe. The noble Lord will know full well in how high a degree of admiration they are held in the United States. That is a matter of enormous assistance to this country's foreign policy objectives. He will know as well as I do some of the remarks made by General Schwarzkopf at the end of the campaign in the Gulf as to the quality of the contribution that our forces uniquely made—I emphasise the word "uniquely"—alongside American forces in that campaign.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the democracies in eastern Europe need all the help we can get. I was glad he welcomed the initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in this new programme of defence diplomacy. Needless to say, I also welcome his interest in conservation matters. I think that there may be a time when I shall need his support in this House very vigorously.
I turn to the beginning of the debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, knows better than to expect me to anticipate in detail the findings of the defence review. But he knows perfectly well my views on the need for this country to keep a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. I should not be at this Dispatch Box if I did not think that this Government shared precisely my views on those matters.
The noble Lord raised the question of the two servicemen in Northern Ireland, as did several other Members. It has been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. I must make it clear to the House that this is not a matter for defence Ministers. It is a matter for Northern Ireland Ministers. It is in your Lordships' discretion whether you wish to make inquiries of Ministers from that department in this House. I am simply not prepared to comment on that question today, although I fully understand the concern that is felt by Members in all parts of the House.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is it not the custom in your Lordships' House for Ministers on the Front Bench to answer for the Government, not for individual departments? The noble Lord is answering as much for the Northern Ireland Office as for the Ministry of Defence in this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course it is the case—it has been repeated often—that Ministers

1559
in this House answer on behalf of the whole Government and not only on behalf of their departments. However, in this case the subject of debate is strictly defence; and questions arising from different departments should be addressed to those departments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene—
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am coming to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in a moment, if I may. I was going to thank the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for having written to me about this. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that when he was on his feet I had inquiries made because no message had come to me that he had wished to raise this subject. As far as I can make out, I am afraid that his advances to our Government Whip's Office seem to have become lost somewhere in the woodwork. I have had no notice whatever that he was going to raise the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I wholly accept without reservation everything the noble Lord has said. But will the House accept that I gave specific notice to the Government Chief Whip that I was going to ask the question, and he told me that he would pass it on? It is all very well; one either cares about this situation or one does not. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, does. I do. What are we going to do about it?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I can only apologise to the noble Lord and say that I received no communication. Of course I totally accept his assurance that he passed a message to the Government Whips Office. I hope he accepts my assurance, speaking at this Dispatch Box, that no message reached me on that account.
I turn to other matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I am happy to confirm that the Government very much support the cadet organisations. The matter was referred to by one of his noble friends as to whether they would be part of the strategic defence review. The answer is that they are not part of the Armed Forces and they will not come under the strategic defence review.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, made a comment about the ethnic composition of the forces. I shall pass it on to my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.
I turn now to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I could not agree with him more that the third world countries will be able to deploy sophisticated weapon systems. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the world is not necessarily a safer place than it was at the time of the Cold War, not least because, although we may not be up against the forces of the Warsaw Pact, we shall be up against other countries. They will deploy weapons of the capability that the Warsaw Pact forces used to have at their disposal and regularly modernised. It is for that reason that this country must have an equipment capability of the highest order into the foreseeable future.
1560
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, mentioned the lead time for new weapons being some 15 years. We hope very much to bring that interval between different generations of weapon systems down. Even more important, what we hope to do in the improvement of our procurement systems is that, instead of making huge quantum jumps in capability in weapon systems, a mid-life improvement for future generations, we shall introduce incremental improvements throughout the life of weapon systems and thereby reduce the many dislocations that the MoD, as the final customer, has in getting and keeping its weapon systems at the level of capability that the Armed Forces deserve.
I also take the noble Lord's point that you can have too high a degree of readiness because it can undermine training arrangements. I do not think the noble Lord needs to worry whether there will still be tanks available to Her Majesty's Army in 10 years' time.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked whether the defence of the realm was the overriding priority of this Government. All I can do is recommend that he reads an article in the Daily Telegraph by the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition, just before the general election. The article makes it absolutely clear how high a priority he places on the defence of the realm. I think we shall see that reflected in the strategic defence review in the fullness of time.
I was therefore a little surprised to hear the noble Lord refer to a proposed massive depletion in funding. I am not sure exactly what he meant. However, if he was referring, as other noble Lords did, to the fine imposed on the Ministry of Defence recently, let me say this clearly. I do not wish to make a partisan point about it; it is a question of history. That fine arose because of overspending in the Ministry of Defence under the previous government. It was calculated according to a methodology that was agreed by the previous government.
The Ministry of Defence was not the only department that suffered a fine last year for those reasons. The Department of Trade and Industry also did. It was not a matter of singling out the Ministry of Defence at all; it was not a piece of opportunism. It followed almost mechanistically from the previous arrangements. The fact that the money then became available to the Treasury was extremely useful for this Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, put it, in helping to meet their commitments to the National Health Service in some of the difficulties which that department faces.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, raised the question of Trident penetration capability. I do not believe that he has anything to worry about. I can also reassure him that there is no prospect under this Government of the three services being merged, as happened in Canada a few years ago.
I have already touched on what the noble Lord, Lord Westbury, said with regard to the guardsmen in a moving brief intervention.
My noble friend Lord Judd welcomed the Government's commitment to securing a code of conduct for the arms trade. I am optimistic that we can

1561
get something done seriously with our friends in Europe in the near future. We are certainly not interested in taking part in what would be merely a cosmetic exercise.
I was particularly grateful to my noble friend for his remarks in relation to the dangers of proliferation of other weapons of mass destruction. We often tend to focus far too exclusively on things nuclear without looking at the capabilities being developed in other parts of the world by malevolent people. With respect to both chemical and biological weapons the agents can be dispersed easily and the capabilities acquired more cheaply and secretly than the capabilities in the nuclear field. Our debates on these matters will be much better informed if we keep in mind that there are dozens of countries in the process of acquiring or which already possess an aggressive chemical capability and are hoping to possess an aggressive biological capability as well. I fully seize my noble friend's point that if we will the end, we must will the means.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that one of the reasons for poor recruitment is poor public perception of the Armed Forces and their uncertain future—that is one of the matters we hope to address in the review—and their reduced status in this country. I am not sure that I agree about the perception of outdated imperial privilege, but there is a perception of the forces not being as friendly and receptive to ethnic minority groups as we would wish. That is another factor that has inhibited recruitment.
In that respect I particularly want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, who spoke of the Household Cavalry. I agree with his remarks. I am aware of what is happening and that is why I was able to stand at the Dispatch Box a little while ago and tell the House that I thought matters would improve in areas where we have not had as happy a record as we should have done. There has never been any doubt under any government about Ministers' commitment to a colour blind Armed Forces. There has never been any question that the chiefs of staff under both governments have been committed to that. The problem has been getting further down into the system to the level of colonel, company sergeant major and people like that who have the greatest influence in these matters. I am sure that the messages that have been sent in recent months, endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will produce considerable and dramatic improvements in this area before long.
Returning to what the noble Baroness was saying, it is not a case of land disposal, which includes firing ranges, being forced by the Treasury. All these issues come to me for consideration, and I can assure the noble Baroness that we have surplus capacity of firing ranges. It only made sense operationally and financially—we must operate a tight ship—to make the savings that we were planning to make.
I am acutely aware that I have detained the House for nearly 20 minutes and I still have not touched on many other contributions by noble Lords. I can only apologise. I am sure your Lordships will not want me to stand here for a further half hour. I therefore crave the indulgence of the House and welcome to the Dispatch Box the
1562
noble Lord, Lord Burnham, who made a fairly ferocious contribution. I can see that we will have some lively and enjoyable debates in the future.
I want to make one matter clear to the noble Lord. The reason for this debate is that debates in both Houses were intended by my right honourable friend to offer an opportunity to noble Lords to make a contribution to the defence review. He is quite right. I did say not so long ago that the country spends too little on defence. That still remains my view and, like any departmental Minister, I fight to try to get more expenditure for the matters for which I am responsible, just as an education Minister or a health Minister would. So I make no apology for having said that.
The noble Lord talked about savings to be made in logistics. That is an area where I would disagree with him. I believe that in the recent past we have made far too many savings in logistics, supplies and maintainability. We have bought platforms that we have not been able to operate because of logistic shortcomings. I think that, if at all, the balance will have to be changed in the years ahead.
There was one other question that was asked by him about the naval officers in Bath and whether they were going to be moved to Abbey Wood. It is certainly the intention to move them, and the second phase of the move is set to be completed by 1999 with the transfer of about 900 posts from Bath and Copenacre and we are looking at the possibility of needing a new building to accommodate all the staff, so the dates may have to be revised. We expect to have a decision early in the New Year.
I must not sit down without referring to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. That would be a terrible thing to do in the light of the cosy relations which the Liberal Democratic Party has with—I do not know whether that is a term I am allowed to use in this House—the other place.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is constructive opposition. We are the party of Campbell-Bannerman, Haldane and Archie Sinclair, and I think we have a contribution to make to this very important subject.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I do not doubt that for one moment. As I am sure the noble Earl appreciates, I was only jesting. We were delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, at one of our seminars and I hope that he found it worthwhile. Another member of his party, Mr. Menzies Campbell, sat right through yesterday's seminar at the Ministry of Defence. I quite agree with him that we need new concepts of Britain's place in the world, and that is precisely why we are having this review. I am sorry that he felt a little disappointed that so far we have not been radical enough in our thinking; but I have to say to him that I thought yesterday's seminar was the best of the three we have had so far. I suggest that he discusses it with his friend in another place, and he might be more encouraged.
I am particularly seized of two things that he said: one was that we need to provide a rationale for defence for the young people of this country. If we do not do

1563
this everything is at risk. Some years ago I used to think that every secondary school child should be taken and shown the Berlin wall or the inner-German border, without any comment from school teachers, so that they could ask the questions themselves—"What is this thing?" and "Why are our troops here?"—and work it all out. We no longer have the obvious incidence of dictatorship and totalitarianism to parade in front of them and so it is much more difficult to explain to them. I am also fully seized of what he said about how very few of them have a political memory going back more than a handful of years. This is going to be a problem for all of us in this House, and in the other place as well, in the years ahead. I also take very seriously the point he made about how ethnic communities in the United Kingdom are unaware of the military contributions made by their forebears. I am sure that this is one of the
1564
points my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be taking into account in our attempts to enhance recruitment from the ethnic minorities.
I have detained your Lordships for far too long. I only regret that I have not been able to touch on many speeches. However, I assure your Lordships that I shall do my best to reply to the points that have been raised.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I most respectfully ask him to use his best endeavours to seek to do something about the guardsmen?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I give the noble Lord this assurance. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

  Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Review
  Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Review
  Mr. Reginald Buckland: Court Documents
  Mr. Reginald Buckland: Court Documents
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Costs
  Polaris Submarines: Chevaline Warheads
  Polaris Submarines: Chevaline Warheads
  Gulf War: Iraqi SCUD Missiles
  Gulf War: Iraqi SCUD Missiles
  US Defence Doctrine: Studies
  US Defence Doctrine: Studies
  Nuclear Weapons: Policy
  Nuclear Weapons: Policy
  Late Payment of Debt
  Late Payment of Debt
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Negotiations
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Negotiations
  Hammersmith Bridge: Closure
  Hammersmith Bridge: Closure
  Mental Health: Services
  Mental Health: Services