Sitting of 27 October 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER acquainted the House that she had issued, during the Adjournment, a warrant for a new writ for the borough constituency of Paisley, South in the room of Gordon McMaster, Esquire, deceased.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Community Constables
    Mr. Healey: What plans he has to increase the presence of community constables on the streets; and if he will make a statement. [11655]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the level of police presence on the streets in their area. The Government are working with the police to relieve them of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens, to allow chief constables to put more officers back on the beat. In the crime and disorder Bill, we shall give the police new powers to enable them to deal with street disorder.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that beat bobbies are often a unique source of local intelligence and play a special part in practical, preventive policing? Does he further agree that, although they are very highly valued by the people they serve, they are sometimes not as highly valued by the forces that employ them? What specific steps does he plan to reinforce the role of community police officers?
    Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. His point about the value of police officers on the beat was emphasised by the Audit Commission's report last year and, indeed, by evidence from the Police Federation. We are making quite clear to all police authorities and chief constables the emphasis that we place on the importance of community police officers, and in the crime and disorder Bill we shall give police and local authorities greater powers to deal with disorder generally.
    Mrs. Laing: Will the Secretary of State join me in expressing the grief and sorrow of the House at the tragic
    564
    death of young WPC Nina Mackay, who lived in my constituency, and in sending her family the condolences of all hon. Members? Is the Secretary of State aware that the person charged with her murder was, at the time of the murder, out on bail? Given those circumstances, will he order a review of the conditions on which bail is granted by magistrates courts?
    Mr. Straw: I will indeed join the hon. Lady, who speaks for the whole House, in expressing our total revulsion at that vile crime against an unarmed WPC, Nina Mackay, who lived in the hon. Lady's constituency, my home town. That makes it all the more poignant for me. Of course I join the hon. Lady in that. The whole country is revolted by this crime against her family and against her whole community.
    The hon. Lady asked whether I will look at the availability of bail conditions to magistrates courts. I understand her point, but she will appreciate that, since a number of judicial and semi-judicial inquiries have to take place, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that until those have been completed; when they are, I shall certainly bear very thoroughly in mind the points that she made.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could transform the situation in the community if we made better use of the special constable? Is it not about time that we took special constables seriously, and paid them a proper amount to do the valuable job that they do in helping the community? Will my right hon. Friend note the experiment which has been such a success in my constituency in improving law keeping on the inner-urban estates?
    Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of special constables. I know that his view is shared throughout the House. It is an open question whether paying special constables would increase their number or availability, but of course we keep the matter under review.
    Mr. Maginnis: May I, on behalf of my party, associate myself with what has been said about the death of the young police constable? We are fully aware of the dangers that our police face in carrying out their duties.
    Is the Home Secretary not placing community constables at a disadvantage by expecting retailers—those who sell on the streets—to police the behaviour of young people, especially in connection with the sale of alcohol and cigarettes? Is it not time that he gave those retailers some statutory authority, for instance, by introducing identity cards, so that the community constable does not find himself at loggerheads with the retailer whom he is policing, unnecessarily and—it often seems to the retailer—unfairly?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question. No one knows better than someone who represents the north of Ireland the enormous danger in which police officers can be placed daily.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, we accept that retailers experience a severe problem when trying to check the ages of people attempting to buy drink or

    565
    cigarettes. That is one of the reasons why we are supporting the proposals of the Portman Group, which wants "proof of age" cards to be introduced.

    Police Constables
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: How many additional police constables were recruited in the year to April 1997. [11659]
    Mr. Straw: The number of police constables in England and Wales increased by 460 during 1996–97 to 98,132.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome the fact that the Sussex police have increased recruitment over the past two years. I am grateful to the last Government for that initiative.
    Will the Home Secretary ensure that basic pay is increased to an adequate level, so that we can encourage more young people to join the police force—and not just more people, but people of adequate calibre?
    Mr. Straw: I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman is so generous in his gratitude to the last Administration, given that there were 11 fewer police officers in Sussex during the period in question than in the previous year. As for his second point, about pay, we intend to maintain the arrangements for police pay that were introduced following the Edmund-Davies report late in 1979.
    Mr. Winnick: Would there not be one more police constable alive today if the court concerned had not granted bail, in opposition to what the police and the Crown Prosecution Service said at the time in giving their reasons why bail should not be granted? Does not the foul and terrible murder of the WPC demonstrate the dangers that some police officers face day in, day out? The House should recognise those dangers, despite the criticisms—often justified—of one or two officers.
    Mr. Straw: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), I entirely understand the point that has been made. I hope that the House will appreciate, however, that until various inquiries have been completed—including the inquest—it would be wrong for me to comment on the precise circumstances in which the court came to issue bail.
    Mr. Greenway: Does the Home Secretary agree with the police, who estimate that there were 3,000 more constables in post in spring this year than in 1992? Will he confirm to the House his intention to provide the funds for, and go ahead with, the recruitment of a further 2,000 police officers, as the previous Government planned?
    Mr. Straw: As the electorate found out, there was a huge difference between what the previous Government planned and what they were able to do. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was as unwise as that of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The simple truth is that, despite two successive promises to increase the number of police officers by 2,000 during the previous Parliament, the number in post fell by 469. That was the Conservative record.

    Primary Purpose Rule
    Ms Beverley Hughes: What progress has been made in implementing changes in the primary purpose rule. [11660]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The primary purpose rule was abolished on 5 June. A review of outstanding appeal cases has now been completed, and those involved should have been informed. Some people will make applications in the light of the change to the rule, and they will be dealt with through the normal procedure.
    Ms Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the primary purpose rule has removed a discriminatory practice that affected many genuinely married couples, and that its removal has meant a great deal to the people concerned? I congratulate my hon. Friend on the successful completion of the review. I am sure that he will agree that future applications must be dealt with fairly and swiftly. What steps has he taken to ensure that they will be dealt with within a reasonable time?
    Mr. O'Brien: A series of steps is in process that should ensure that cases are dealt with quickly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. The primary purpose rule was without a purpose, except to cause misery to many families. The mess that it caused to family life was deplorable. I am pleased that we were able to remove it and thereby show that we support families.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister realise that the abolition of the primary purpose rule and the other changes that the new Government have introduced have led to the problems that he has been trying to explain away on Czech television in the past couple of weeks? Is it not quite clear that the previous Government were absolutely right to have a sensible, firm and fair policy? The minute the new Government took office they started messing about and caused enormous strains on the system through illegal, bogus asylum seekers trying to come to this country. Is that not a recipe for disaster?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to know the difference between immigration controls and the asylum system. If this change in the primary purpose rule was so bad, why did the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) not pray against it, not seek to have a debate on it and not oppose it? The reason is that it was a fair change. It will ensure that the Government will do what they promised at the general election, which was to maintain firm and fair immigration and asylum controls.
    Mr. Lock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes that he has made to the immigration laws, although they may not have been accepted by Conservative Members, have been widely accepted by people in the country? Does he further agree that those who have lined up to condemn the changes, whether from the xenophobic or the homophobic tendency, are to be deplored?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right, but he does a disservice to some Conservative Members, such as the

    567
    hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who was conspicuous in welcoming the changes to the primary purpose rule. However, my hon. Friend is right: it is the same old Tories. At the Tory conference, the Tory leader said that his party would now be more open and tolerant. Within hours of that statement, we made an announcement on same sex couples which brought out rent-a-quotes from people, from Lord Tebbit to the ex-Member of Parliament, Sir Ivan Lawrence. The hard, intolerant, right-wing core of the Tory party is still there: we know it, no matter what the Leader of the Opposition now says.

    Police Pensions
    Mr. Gray: What representations he has received on the effect on police pensions of the removal of the advance corporation tax credit for pension funds. [11661]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): It should come as no surprise to the House that we have received no representations on the effect on police pensions of the removal of the advance corporation tax credit. The police pension scheme is not based on a pension fund: it is financed on a pay-as-you-go basis.
    Mr. Gray: Is the Minister not aware that, although what he says is of course correct, he has entirely missed the fact that civilian employees in the police force will be affected by the removal of this tax? In Wiltshire alone, the removal of ACT will cost the police force an extra £80,000. That money should be spent on policing Wiltshire's streets rather than being handed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should read his own question before asking supplementaries. He asked specifically about the effect on police pensions. The distinction that he makes does not apply to some police pensions, especially some in the Metropolitan police.

    Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985
    Mr. Hanson: What plans he has to review the operation of and scope of the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. [11662]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Although we remain concerned about that problem, we have no plans to review the operation of the Act at this time.
    Mr. Hanson: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome the recent appointment of the drugs tsar, who will help in the overall co-ordination of Government policy on the prevention of substance abuse?
    On solvent abuse in particular, which is the topic of the Act, will my hon. Friend ensure that there is greater education and stronger enforcement of the Act? In particular, will he ensure that the dangers of butane gas abuse, which has killed nearly 40 young people this year alone, are brought to the attention of the community at large?
    Mr. Howarth: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the appointment of the new drugs tsar. There is a case for co-ordinating Government policy and I am sure that that is the function that the drugs tsar will carry out.
    568
    My hon. Friend asks about solvent and lighter gas abuse. We receive advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the Department of Trade and Industry is currently looking at the difficulties of enforcing policy. The Department will involve the council, and if anything positive results we shall certainly be willing to act. The advice that we have received, and that which the previous Government received on two occasions, is that it is difficult to legislate in this area. If anyone can come up with a sensible way to do that, we will obviously look at it.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. David Atkinson: What assessment he has made of the use of closed circuit television in combating crime. [11663]
    Mr. Michael: The experience of closed circuit television partnerships and recent research has shown that CCTV can be effective in preventing crime and, indeed, the fear of crime when it is used as part of a wider crime prevention strategy. The CCTV schemes which the Home Office has helped to fund are required to provide details of how they plan to evaluate the success of their systems, and we are continuing to monitor these.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the dismay of my constituents that a European regulation which is to be implemented next year will prevent the use of video evidence alone, however conclusive, being sufficient for a court to convict? Will he resist such Napoleonic practices from Europe, which can only hinder the Government's ability to be tough on crime?
    Mr. Michael: Often, things are blamed on Europe which Europe is not even trying to introduce. I shall certainly look at the hon. Gentleman's point, but I think that he is misinterpreting what is coming from Europe. Certainly, one of the strengths of CCTV is that on a number of occasions it has provided clarity of evidence and has increased the certainty of successful prosecution. We all know that the fear of being caught and punished is the most effective deterrent to crime.
    Ms Christine Russell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although CCTV is no substitute for police officers on the beat, it makes a great contribution to reducing crime, especially street crime and shoplifting in city centres? Would he and his Department be prepared to do more to encourage retailers and city centre businesses to enter into funding partnerships with local authorities so as to extend the provision of CCTV?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are benefits from CCTV schemes, particularly when they are part of a response to crime by a partnership involving the public sector and the business sector. The crime and disorder Bill, which we shall introduce later this year, will strengthen and encourage those partnerships and will involve the whole community in the fight against crime. CCTV needs to be a part of that community response where its targeted use is particularly appropriate.
    Mr. Clappison: But the Minister is conspicuously not offering anything in the way of new resources. He will

    569
    remember that, before the recess, he promised a decision on the future of Home Office support for rounds of closed circuit television, and he has done nothing. Is it not time that the Government stopped dithering and showed some commitment to this highly effective weapon in the fight against crime, or will the Government more readily find money to put television sets into prison cells to please prisoners than put cameras on the streets to protect the public?
    Mr. Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing who was in power when television sets were put into cells. I appreciate the difficulty that he is in: he has taken over a difficult brief, which has been left in an awful mess by Conservative predecessors. For instance, the previous Home Secretary had £15 million to spend in this financial year and he appears to have spent £20 million. We are trying to sort out the mess that we have inherited. It is also clear that, despite the interesting comments by the Conservative party in the run-up to the general election, it had made no provision whatever for CCTV past the coming financial year—so the hon. Gentleman needs to do his homework before coming to this Chamber.

    Border Controls
    Dr. Ladyman: If he will make a statement on Britain's border controls with the rest of the European Union. [11664]
    Mr. Straw: Our first resolve is to retain the United Kingdom system of frontier and border controls. One of the many achievements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Amsterdam in June was to obtain legal confirmation of the right to maintain controls at our frontiers with other European Union member states—something that the previous Administration had conspicuously failed to achieve.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he also confirm that the problems in east Kent are almost entirely a consequence of the previous Administration's failure to put in place fair and effective asylum and immigration controls? I thank him for the efforts he has already made to reduce significantly the number of unfounded asylum seekers. What further measures does he intend to implement to help asylum applications to be dealt with more quickly?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have acted swiftly and firmly to seek to stem the flow of unfounded asylum seekers at Dover and elsewhere, against a background in which the previous Government signed up to the Dublin convention, apparently without even reading the text, something that has made the procedure much more complex and much more difficult.
    In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, I can announce today the introduction of a new procedure to speed up the decision-making processes in abusive asylum cases. Under the new procedure, the time allowed for people with abusive claims to make further representations after interview will be cut from the
    570
    existing 28 days to five working days. The new procedure will have national application at all ports with immediate effect.
    Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard his junior Minister confirm on the radio this morning that his civil servants were reviewing entry procedures for people coming into the United Kingdom and passport controls, and that there was therefore some substance in the newspaper story that was carried. Given that the Minister said that this morning, why should we believe for one moment that our frontiers are safe, particularly in the light of the fact that his Department took absolutely no action to stem the first wave of immigrants from the Czech and Slovak Republics until that news hit the press?
    Mr. Straw: Almost every assumption behind the hon. Gentleman's question is incorrect. The truth is that we took firm and effective action. That is now working, as the numbers show.
    Mr. Prosser: I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting me last week to talk about the serious problems that Dover and my constituents in Dover face. Does he agree that the sudden impact of bogus asylum seekers on a small community such as Dover can have major social impact and disrupt good racial harmony? Would he like to contrast the practical and responsible way in which the Government are working to find solutions to those sensitive problems with the irresponsible and inflammatory statements made by some Conservative Members?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and for the compliment that he paid to my hon. Friend the junior Minister, who has been working so hard to deal with those problems. The truth is that the previous Government's practice on asylum applications was chaotic. That led to a wholly unsatisfactory burden being placed on local authorities, about which Conservative right hon. and hon. Members used to complain. But that burden is there. The previous Government's inefficiency also led to a backlog of more than 50,000 applications. They created the problem; we are attempting to provide a solution to it.
    Mr. Beith: Has not the document that appeared this morning revealed that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor, perhaps more significantly, the previous Conservative Government set aside anything like enough money to provide enough immigration officers to inspect every one of the millions of passports that are shown at our port controls? Does that not demonstrate that the right hon. Gentleman must use more sophisticated systems, particularly given that the current one allows many illegal immigrants through in any case, and seek more European co-operation, not less, to control in particular the flow of criminals across boundaries?
    Mr. Straw: One of the reasons why the Liberal Democrats ended up with such a small number of seats after the election and are the third party was their spend, spend, spend policy, which convinced nobody. The right hon. Gentleman spent the one penny on income tax about 55 times over.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I invite my right hon. Friend to refute the suggestions made in some newspapers today

    571
    that Britain is planning to abandon its border controls. May I also ask him to provide further information about the announcement that he has just made about speeding up the processing of abusive asylum claims? What measures will be put in place to ensure that those whose claims are genuine will not be pushed into the fast track and will be able to make full representations on their cases?
    Mr. Straw: The procedure according to which we have cut the time from 28 days to five days for port applicants—something which the previous Government never did—is designed for abusive claims. Those who have a genuine, well-founded claim will not be caught by the change.
    As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the simple fact is that the previous Government failed to secure proper legal protection for our border controls. That is not just our view but the view of the former Conservative Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). It was not until my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Amsterdam that any proper legal protection of our border controls was obtained and written into international law.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: First, may I associate the Opposition with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and those of the Home Secretary on the tragic death of the woman police constable? We join everyone else in extending our condolences to her family.
    Given the Government's apparent determination to undermine our border controls and the fair but firm immigration policy which they inherited from the previous Government, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the terms of reference of the spending review made it legitimate for civil servants to bring forward for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration the sort of proposals outlined in today's edition of The Guardian?
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the appalling death of WPC Nina Mackay.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's question, he should do a little more research on his Government's record on border controls. They had no legal basis for their claim about such controls. Moreover, I have discovered that, under the Conservative Administration, they cut the proportion of embarkation controls from 100 per cent. to 60 per cent. of passengers, but never announced that—hardly "firm but fair": unfair and not firm at all.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Allan: What plans he has to revise the practice of keeping asylum seekers in prison. [11665]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: A review of detention policy, including the use of prisons, is being undertaken. Interested groups have been asked to comment on the principal proposals and the final conclusions will be made known shortly.
    Mr. Allan: Is it the Minister's intention to consult Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on his view of the
    572
    use of prison and detention centres for asylum seekers? Under the review, is it still intended to minimise the use of prison in line, with the Home Secretary's commitment to the Charter '87 group for refugees?
    Mr. O'Brien: The answer to both questions is yes. I have discussed the detention review with Sir David Ramsbotham and asked him to compile some specific reports, including one into the situation at Campsfield, where there were some disturbances a few months ago. I have also asked him for some details of his views on the matter. The objective, as always, is to minimise the use of detention.
    Mr. Malins: Many Conservative Members think that the Government are a soft touch for asylum seekers. Will the Minister confirm that it costs more than £500 a week to keep an asylum seeker in detention? How many asylum seekers are currently in detention and what is the total cost to the Exchequer? How long will the taxpayer put up with the fact that the Government appear so soft?
    Mr. O'Brien: It sounds very much as though the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government are a soft touch, which we are not, and then complaining that it costs too much to detain people. We detain the minimum number of people and ensure that we detain only those whom it is necessary to detain because of a fear that they might abscond. We were committed at the general election to maintaining firm immigration controls, we are committed to it today and we shall be committed to it throughout our time in office.
    Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the real problem is that his predecessor left a backlog of 76,000 asylum cases that had not been dealt with when the Conservatives lost the general election?
    Mr. O'Brien: That is certainly one of the key problems that we face in trying to resolve the difficulties of the asylum system. We have been handicapped not only by the backlog but by the complexities of the Dublin convention, which came into force on 1 September and has made it much more difficult to return asylum seekers to other countries, causing many problems in Dover, for example. We have also inherited the system of having 28 days to deal with manifestly unfounded asylum claims; it is bizarre, but it was the previous Government's rule. We are at a loss to explain why they had it, but they did. They bequeathed us a messy asylum system, and we are intent on cleaning it up, sorting it out and making it work efficiently and effectively.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Amess: What recent representations he has received on measures taken by his Department in respect of crime prevention. [11666]
    Mr. Michael: As of last Friday, 24 October, we had received 114 responses to our consultation document, "Getting to Grips with Crime—a New Framework for Local Action". I am especially pleased at the positive response from both the police and local authorities. A variety of representative and voluntary organisations

    573
    have responded positively to our invitation to join us in developing proactive strategies to cut crime. We have also had a positive response from many business leaders.
    Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that policing in Westcliff and Leigh-on-Sea is shortly to be reorganised? Will he join me in congratulating all those involved in trying to improve the quality of people's lives by high-visibility, community-based, intelligence-led policing—all, I understand, at no extra cost to the Exchequer?
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in the policing of Westcliff and Leigh-on-Sea, about which I would not otherwise have been as well informed. About a year ago, it was discovered that 25 per cent. of crime in the division was occurring on one beat in the town centre, and staffing levels were adjusted accordingly, although I understand that there is no reorganisation as such, leading to a cut of 14 per cent. in crime in that division last year. That is a good example of crime being analysed and properly understood—that is right at the heart of our policies—and then being tackled by the police, either alone or in conjunction with local authorities and others.
    Mrs. Brinton: Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent measures are needed to combat youth crime, particularly after 18 years of Tory lawlessness and disorder? I should like to draw his attention to the state of siege in Kingsley road in Peterborough, where gangs of teenagers and children as young as 10 daily set houses on fire, burn out cars and force young families to flee their homes in the middle of the night leaving all their possessions. Will he ensure that the proposals for youth curfews are enforced when the crime and disorder Bill becomes law?
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, and for the stress that she has placed on dealing with youth crime. That is a measure of the extent to which we have concentrated on youth crime and on preparation of measures in the crime and disorder Bill throughout the summer. We await comments on several consultation documents that include some of the measures that will address the problems to which she referred. The curfew proposals are practical and will work in the situations that she described, with youngsters of 10 and younger running roughshod around an area. We need to build confidence back into the system; we are determined to do that.
    Mr. Evans: Has the Minister received any representations about the abuse of laser lights? I am sure that he has recently read in the newspapers about the abuse of what are normally presentational aids. When abused, they can cause temporary blindness; if stared at over even relatively short periods, they can cause more sinister damage to the eye. Will he ensure that his Department will spread the message loud and clear to people who abuse laser lights that they will face the full rigour of the law?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which arises whenever something legitimately available for sensible business and other purposes is misused or abused to the detriment of other people.
    574
    The issue has certainly been raised with us, not least by the Police Superintendents Association. We are considering the medical evidence about the problems that can be caused and we wish to address the issue. We are awaiting evidence from some of the police associations about the extent to which their members have discovered problems. We need to understand the problem to address it properly. Many people will share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), at the weekend in my constituency a laser pen was pointed into the eyes of a bus driver, who was temporarily blinded. While I accept what my hon. Friend says about what his Department can do, will he ask the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs to look at the availability of those pens and at who can buy them?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point: we need to work across Departments. That is why I mentioned that we are discussing items that are available for legitimate use but that are being used by some people in the wrong way. We shall certainly consult colleagues about the best way to respond to the problem highlighted by the incident in his constituency.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. Dalyell: What consultation he has had with the Scottish Office since the referendum on the transfer of those responsibilities which are currently his to the Scottish Parliament. [11668]
    Mr. Straw: Our proposals for devolution are set out in the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament". There are no plans for my responsibilities to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament.
    Mr. Dalyell: What will be the demarcation between Edinburgh and Westminster in relation to the delicate issue of responsibility for drugs?
    Mr. Straw: The White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" makes it clear that the criminal law in relation to drugs will be a reserved matter and will remain the responsibility of my Department. The Scottish Executive will inherit the current responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Those responsibilities include drug misuse, health, treatment and education, as well as responsibility for the police and prosecution authorities' enforcement in Scotland of drug misuse legislation, which will be set by this House and Parliament.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government's proposals for devolution are enacted, the House will have no say over policies relating to Home Office type affairs, which are now the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Would it not be wrong, therefore, for Scottish Members of Parliament sitting in this House to have any say on Home Office affairs in so far as they relate to England?
    Mr. Straw: I do not accept the assumption behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, not least

    575
    because I have made it clear that issues of criminal law relating to drugs will be a reserved matter for this Parliament. Therefore, it is entirely right that Members of Parliament, whichever constituencies they represent, should not only speak but vote on those matters.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Corbyn: What is his latest estimate of the number of asylum seekers held in custody under the Immigration Acts. [11669]
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: As at 30 September 1997, the most recent date for which information is available, 772 persons who had sought asylum at some stage were recorded as being detained solely under Immigration Act powers. As I have already stated, we announced a review of detention policy before the recess.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. When he undertakes the review of the policy of internment of asylum seekers, will he bear it in mind that many of those who have been detained for many months have a deep sense of injustice? They have fled from oppressive societies where they have lived in great fear and have often suffered racist attacks, only to arrive in this country and find themselves in custody for several months. Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is an abuse of their rights? We should not have a routine policy of imprisonment—no other European country does. The measure should be used only in the most extreme circumstances and we should not keep more than 700 people in custody.
    Mr. O'Brien: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. There is no routine detention of persons. I would not accept that, and I am sure that the Government would not accept it. People are not detained merely because they are seeking asylum; other factors will always have a bearing on the likelihood of people complying with the conditions of temporary admission which determine the need for detention. At any one time, only about 1.5 per cent. of those who may have sought asylum are actually detained.
    Mr. Brooke: Is the Minister contemplating an increase in the amount of provision in detention centres in order to reduce the pressure on prisons?
    Mr. O'Brien: That is one of the issues that we shall have to examine as part of the review of detention. It is obviously preferable, where possible, to detain people under immigration powers in detention centres rather than in prisons but, given the numbers and pressures and the nature of some detainees who have been unable to adapt themselves to the more relaxed regime in detention centres, we sometimes have to use prisons.
    Dr. Harris: Detaining up to 500 asylum seekers in prison establishments costs up to £20 million to £30 million a year. Does the Minister agree that that money could be better spent on providing prison places for the criminals who are currently in overcrowded prisons? Given that, at my suggestion, Sir David Ramsbotham has visited Campsfield House in my constituency, and given the critical report on Rochester prison and the likely critical report on Tinsley House,
    576
    how many critical reports will the Minister have to receive before he ends the barbaric practice of using prisons? The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government's ethical foreign policy. How long do we have to wait for an ethical Home Office policy?
    Mr. O'Brien: Presumably, the hon. Gentleman is saying that nobody should be held in detention. I was interested to hear that he asked Sir David Ramsbotham to act—probably before the hon. Gentleman did, I asked Sir David Ramsbotham to act. He conducted an inspection of Campsfield House at my request; he has briefed me on the result of his inquiries and will shortly be letting me have a full and detailed report of the situation. It is necessary to examine the way in which we use detention, and we are doing that. The prospects of releasing everybody are extremely unlikely. We need to use detention in certain cases. We want to apply a firm immigration policy; that is the Government's policy and that is what we shall deliver.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: I share the Minister's view that documentation is an important part of determining whether asylum seekers should be permitted to remain in this country, but may I take him back to the broader issue of border controls? I shall ask a question that the Home Secretary either did not know the answer to or would not come clean to the House about. Will the hon. Gentleman, who has direct responsibility for these matters, confirm that the terms of reference of the spending review made it legitimate for civil servants to produce the sort of proposals outlined in today's edition of The Guardian?
    Mr. O'Brien: I make it clear that the Government will maintain firm immigration controls. Nothing will be done that undermines our ability to enforce firm immigration controls. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister secured our legal right to do that at Amsterdam, which is something the previous Government singularly failed to achieve. We shall maintain the enforceability of immigration controls. The document to which the right hon. Gentleman refers would appear to be merely a think piece—a summary of the views of some officials. Our determination and our commitments are clear: those commitments will be delivered. The people of Britain have voted for them and the people of Britain will get them.

    Air Rifles
    Mr. Hinchliffe: If he will review the licensing arrangements for the use of air rifles. [11670]
    Mr. Michael: No firearms certificate is required at present to possess or use an air weapon unless it exceeds the statutory maximum power levels. There are, however, restrictions on purchase, possession and use, particularly by young people. Hon. Members will understand that we have concentrated on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill in order to ban private ownership of .22 pistols and to fulfil an election commitment with that measure. When that legislation has been dealt with, we shall consider carefully whether further restrictions are necessary, as part of a wider look at what other firearm controls may be needed to safeguard the public.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does my hon. Friend accept that air weapons are increasingly responsible for injury to,

    577
    and destruction of, wildlife to an alarming degree? Is it not a fact that children and young persons are increasingly responsible for the problems caused by the misuse of air weapons? I urge my hon. Friend to consider, as a matter of urgency, increasing the restrictions on ownership and use of air weapons. Will he consider banning them completely?
    Mr. Michael: As I have said, we shall consider what is needed—particularly for the protection of the public—after the present legislation has been dealt with. On my hon. Friend's specific question, killing or injuring any bird or protected animal carries a fine of up to £5,000. Especially powerful air weapons—that is, rifles with a muzzle energy of more than 12 ft per pound and air pistols with a muzzle energy of more than 6 ft per pound—must be kept on a firearms certificate. Persons under 14 years of age may not be in possession of an air weapon unless as a member of an approved club, in a shooting gallery or under the supervision of a person over the age of 21. Purchase by persons under 17 is not permitted, nor is possession in a public place. There are laws in place regulating matters relevant to my hon. Friend's point, but I shall be happy to look at any evidence that he or others bring forward when we consider those issues further, in due course.

    Criminal Justice (Voluntary Organisations)
    Mr. Letwin: What meetings he and his colleagues have held with voluntary organisations concerned with the administration of justice and the treatment of offenders in the Home Office since 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [11671]
    Mr. Michael: Since 1 May, my colleagues and I have held 10 such meetings in the Home Office. We have also attended a number of events outside the Home Office at the invitation of voluntary organisations concerned with the administration of justice and the treatment of offenders.
    Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister accept the previous Government's extraordinary record in encouraging voluntary organisations in that sector? Does he have any proposals to improve on the measures that have already been taken?
    Mr. Michael: I certainly agree that the measures taken by the previous Government were extraordinary, but voluntary organisations concerned with the administration of justice and the treatment of offenders feel that a great weight has been lifted from their shoulders. We are receiving a great deal of co-operation and enthusiasm from them in our measures to deal with crime and the problems arising from crime.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the voluntary sector has an enormously important contribution to make to the implementation of important Government policies, not least in winning back our communities? Will he therefore express my personal appreciation that responsibility for the voluntary sector and volunteering has now returned to the Home Office and to Labour Home Office Ministers who have an
    578
    appreciation and understanding of that important role, as was most certainly not the case under the previous Government?
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary welcomed the return of the voluntary and community unit to the Home Office and there is a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of Ministers for cementing the essential partnership between the voluntary sector and Government.
    Mr. Beith: Will Ministers be meeting one of those organisations, the Howard League, to discuss the report that it published today? The report reveals the trebling of the number of teenage girls held in adult prisons, where they are subject to many risks and not provided with adequate rehabilitation. That is especially troubling when many of them are first offenders and could not be described as regular or hardened criminals.
    Mr. Michael: We do meet the Howard League regularly and recently I spoke at its conference. The report is interesting. The Howard League takes a particular view on those matters—one that we discuss with it regularly.

    Election Broadcasts
    Mr. Soley: What proposals he has to review the Representation of the People Acts in relation to broadcasting during general elections. [11672]
    Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have no specific proposals to do that. However, the election that took place in May is the subject of a consultation exercise. I understand that broadcasters are to meet officials in the Home Office to discuss the operation of section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. If they come up with any proposals, obviously we shall consider them on their merits.
    Mr. Soley: There is considerable and growing concern among broadcasters, politicians and the public about the way in which our elections are covered; that coverage should allow open and fair debate in a political situation. Would it not be a good idea, if we did conduct a radical review of the Representation of the People Acts, to consider ways in which constituencies are covered in general elections and by-elections, to allow a more free and open debate?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. There is a problem in as much as, if one or two candidates in a constituency are covered in a broadcast, a minor candidate further down the list can prevent the broadcast proceeding because of the need for equal coverage. However, it is a complex matter and I believe that, before I give my particular view on it, it would be right to receive representations from the broadcasters. That process is in train.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that, by the time of the next election, 40 or more digital television channels will be available to viewers, what restrictions does the Home

    579
    Office intend to place on the Prime Minister against the multiple showing of the type of video that we saw at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful. I think that the more that the general public see of the Prime Minister, the happier they are.

    Crime Victims
    Mr. Watts: If he will make a statement on the treatment of victims by the criminal justice system. [11674]
    Mr. Michael: The Government are firmly committed to helping victims of crime and to taking action to redress the balance of the criminal justice system in the favour of victims. We have already taken several steps to achieve that. We are giving Victim Support an extra £1 million a year to develop its work with victims and witnesses and to establish a national telephone helpline for victims. We have established an interdepartmental group to undertake an urgent, wide-ranging review of ways to assist vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. There are several other proposals, including sentencing proposals.
    Mr. Watts: Can my hon. Friend give the House an update on any progress that has been made in speeding up the process of dealing with cases that involve young persistent criminals?
    Mr. Michael: The steps that the Government are taking are intended to halve the time that it takes for persistent offenders to come before the courts. As the Audit Commission showed last year, it currently takes, on average, a ludicrous four-and-a-half months to get young offenders before the court. [Interruption.] I take it that that was applause for our intention to cut that time. We intend to halve that time, so that persistent young offenders are dealt with quickly by the courts.

    Illegal Drugs
    Mr. Flynn: What new measures he intends to introduce to reduce the demand for illegal drugs. [11675]
    Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware that we intend to advance the proposal for a treatment and testing order in the new legislation that will be coming forward shortly and that a United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator was appointed recently. The Government are determined to combat the menace of drugs in our society.
    Mr. Flynn: Did my hon. Friend read the report this weekend, in the newspaper Disability Now, of the results
    580
    of a survey of 200 severely disabled people, who said that they are using cannabis as a medicine and that they are breaking the law to do so, because of its unique medicinal effects for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy and glaucoma? Why is it that heroin and cocaine can be legally prescribed, but the tens of thousands of people who use the much milder drug cannabis for pain relief have to depend on criminals and the illegal market?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be aware that all drugs used for medical purposes have to be scientifically tested. If cannabis succeeds in those tests—if it is proved that it has medicinal qualities—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already made it clear that he would be willing to consider allowing medicinal use of it. Unfortunately, as of now, there is no such evidence.

    Community Policing
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will list the steps he is taking to establish the levels of public satisfaction with community policing in each area. [11677]
    Mr. Michael: The Police Act 1996 requires police authorities to obtain the views of local people on the policing of their area. That is done by a variety of means. Once our new statutory duties on local authorities and the police to establish local crime prevention partnerships are in place, there will be an obligation on those two bodies to conduct a crime and disorder audit in their areas and to consult the local public on it. That will improve the way that the police consider the local public's views on, and experience of, crime and the fear of crime.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the public's concern about community policing. He will also be aware that the police do not view bobbies on the beat as the most effective way of policing. Given the importance of the public's perception of policing in their areas being favourable, how does the Minister intend to deal with that?
    Mr. Michael: I am not quite sure what question the hon. Gentleman is asking. We intend to ensure that the police, with local authorities and the wider community, fully understand and analyse the problems of crime and disorder in their areas so as to target them specifically and to cut crime. Our target is to cut crime, not to watch it go on increasing.

Viscount Tonypandy
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: All Members of the House have heard with sorrow of the death of Viscount Tonypandy, who was our Speaker from February 1976 to June 1983. I wish, on behalf of all parties and of each and every right hon. and hon. Member of this House, to pay a tribute to the memory of one of my most distinguished predecessors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Born in the mining communities of south Wales, George Thomas became a schoolmaster and, at the age of 25, a Methodist lay preacher. He entered the House in the vast intake of new Members in 1945. He quickly adapted to the ways of the House and, rather unusually, was chosen as a member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen at an early stage of his parliamentary career.
On the return of the Labour Government in 1964, George Thomas held junior office in the Home Office, the Welsh Office and the Commonwealth Office. It was a cause of great pride to him when, in 1968, he was appointed to succeed Mr. Cledwyn Hughes as Secretary of State for Wales. When his party returned to office in 1974, he was asked to take the post of Chairman of Ways and Means, and such was his distinction in that office that it came as no surprise when, two years later, he was unanimously elected Speaker on the retirement of Selwyn Lloyd.
For the next seven years, George Thomas was a dominant figure in the Chair. His presence was magisterial, but at the same time he appeared human and friendly. He was particularly adept at breaking tensions in the House with his own brand of humour. Radio listeners—this was before television was brought into the Chamber—became familiar with the attractive Welsh lilt of his voice.
Outside the Chamber, Viscount Tonypandy's influence was considerable. He was the first Chairman of the House of Commons Commission. In Speaker's House, many Members of all parties, including younger ones, had reason to be grateful for his wise advice and friendship. On his retirement, the then Prime Minister summed up the feelings of all Members when she said:
"You have upheld with a special combination of impartiality and authority the dignity of your office and of this House".— [Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 920.]
After his retirement, George Thomas became a valued contributor from the Cross Benches in that other place, and despite lengthy periods of ill health, he kept up his many outside charitable and other activities, most notably as chairman and later president of the National Children's Home. But the place where he liked most to be in his later years was in his beloved south Wales.
In saluting Viscount Tonypandy's memory, I know that I speak for the whole House in thanking God for his distinctive life of service to this House, to the country at large and to all his fellow men and women. We offer our condolences to his family and friends.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Winchester (Election)
3.34 pm
Madam Speaker: I have one other duty to perform. It is my duty to report to the House that I have received a communication from the Queen's Bench division of the High Court of Justice, in which two of Her Majesty's judges have informed me of their determination in the matter of the election of a Member for the constituency of Winchester on 1 May last.
The court's determination, reached in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, is that: there were breaches by the returning officer's agent of rules 20 and 37, as set out in schedule 1 to the Act; that the result of the election was affected thereby; that Mark Oaten was not duly elected and returned as Member of Parliament for Winchester; and that the election on 1 May 1997 is void.
I shall cause the full text of the court's communication to be recorded in the Journal. The next step is for a writ to be issued for a new election, and I hope that the necessary notice will be brought before the House in the very near future.
We now have a statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Economic and Monetary Union
3.36 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I want to make a statement on economic and monetary union.
Since the end of the second world war, Britain has faced no question more important and more contentious than that of our relationship with Europe. Divisions within Governments of both parties, and hence indecision, have made British policy towards Europe over many years inconsistent and unclear. The economic consequences of those weaknesses have been a loss of international initiative and influence, recurrent instability and continuing questioning of our long-term economic direction.
To break with this legacy and to establish clear national purpose, which has eluded us for decades, economic leadership is essential, and Britain must now make the difficult decisions on Europe, however hard.
The decision on a single currency is probably the most important question that this country is likely to face in our generation. Yet until now, there has been no detailed examination by Government of the practical economic issues of EMU and no proper preparation for a decision, because no previous Government could agree on whether they supported it in principle, nor whether there was an overriding constitutional objection on grounds of sovereignty; nor whether, even if a single currency worked and worked well, the Government would wish to be part of it. Forms of words like, "keeping the option open"—while no preparations were ever made to render that option practicable—have similarly served as a pretext for postponing the hard choices.
Now is the time to make these hard choices and set a long-term direction for our economic future in Europe. So I shall deal in turn with the question of principle of economic monetary union, the constitutional implications and the economic tests that have to be met. In each area, I shall set down the Government's policy.
When we came into government, I asked the Treasury to carry out an assessment of the economic tests that have to be met. Accompanying my statement is a detailed and comprehensive Treasury assessment, which I am publishing today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
I start with the question of principle. The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. Of course, I stress that it must be soundly based. It must succeed. But if it works economically, it is, in our view, worth doing. So in principle, a successful single currency within a single European market would be of benefit to Europe and Britain. Secondly, it must be clearly recognised that to share a common monetary policy with other states represents a major pooling of economic sovereignty.
There are those who argue that this should be a constitutional bar to British participation in a single currency, regardless of the economic benefits that it could bring to the people of this country. In other words, they would rule out a single currency in principle, even if it were in the best economic interests of the country.
This is an understandable objection, and one argued from principle, but in our view it is wrong. If a single currency would be good for British jobs, British business
584
and future prosperity, it is right in principle to join. The constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but it is not an overriding one. Rather, it signifies that, in order for monetary union to be right for Britain, the economic benefit should be clear and unambiguous.
I therefore conclude on the question of principle that if, in the end, the single currency is successful and the economic case is clear and unambiguous, the Government believe that Britain should be part of it.
There is a third issue of principle—the consent of the British people. Because of the magnitude of the decision, we believe, again as a matter of principle, that, whenever the decision to enter is taken by Government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people. Whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree.
We conclude that the determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest, and whether the economic case for doing so is clear and unambiguous.
I turn now to the Treasury's detailed assessment of the five economic tests that define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made. These tests are, first, whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency; secondly, whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; thirdly, the effect on investment; fourthly, the impact on our financial services generally; and fifthly, whether it is good for employment.
Of these, the first and most critical is convergence: can we be confident that the United Kingdom business cycle has converged with that of other European countries, so that the British economy can have stability and prosperity within a common European monetary policy? That convergence must be capable of being sustained and likely to be sustained. In other words, we must demonstrate a settled period of convergence.
Currently, Britain's business cycle is out of line with those of our European partners. British interest rates are 7 per cent.—the level set by the Bank of England in order to achieve the inflation target—but in Germany and France, interest rates are close to 3 per cent. Across the continent, because business cycles are more coincident, short-term interest rates have been converging for some time.
This divergence of economic cycles is in part a reflection of historic structural differences between the United Kingdom and other European economies, in particular the pattern of our trade and North sea oil. These differences are becoming less distinct as trade with the rest of Europe grows and the single market deepens. However, divergence is also a legacy of Britain's past susceptibility to boom and bust—the damaging boom of the late 1980s, the severe recession of the early 1990s and the previous Government's failure to raise interest rates early enough in the current economic cycle.
Since coming into office, the Government have introduced long-term measures to ensure that we are capable of maintaining stability, by giving operational responsibility to the Bank of England for interest rates and by implementing our deficit reduction plan for public borrowing.
We will need a period of stability with continuing toughness on inflation and public borrowing. The Treasury's assessment is that, at present, the UK's

585
economic cycle is not convergent with our European partners, and that this divergence could continue for some time. To demonstrate sustainable convergence will take a period of years.
To be successful in a monetary union, countries will need even more flexibility to adjust to change and to unexpected economic events once the ability of countries to vary their interest rates and their exchange rates has gone, and the euro and a single European interest rate are in place. Flexibility may be particularly important for the United Kingdom if there is any risk that our business cycle has not fully converged with those of other European countries.
The Treasury assessment on the second test—flexibility—is that, in Britain, persistent long-term unemployment and lack of skills, and in some areas lack of competition, point to the need for more flexibility to adapt to change and to meet the new challenges of adjustment. The Government have begun to implement a programme for investing in education and training, helping people from welfare to work and improving the workings of our markets.
Of course, other European countries need to tackle unemployment and inflexibility to make sure that Europe as a whole is able to withstand any shocks that arise. The Government will continue to argue that employability, flexibility and stronger competition policies must be a top priority so that monetary union can be successful.
The third test is investment: whether joining monetary union would create better conditions for businesses to make long-term decisions to invest in Britain. The Treasury assessment is that, above all, business needs long-term economic stability and a well-functioning European single market. It concludes that membership of a successful single currency would help us to create the conditions for higher and more productive investment in Britain. The worst case for investment would be for Britain to enter EMU without proper preparations and without sufficient convergence, with all the uncertainty that that would entail.
The fourth test asks what impact membership of the single currency would have on our financial services industry. EMU will affect that industry more profoundly and more immediately than any other sectors of the economy. The Treasury's assessment is that we can now be confident that the industry has the potential to thrive whether the United Kingdom is in or out of EMU, so long as it is properly prepared. However, the benefits of new opportunities from a single currency could be easier to tap from within the euro zone, and that could help the City of London to strengthen its position as the leading financial centre in Europe.
For millions of people, the most practical question is whether membership of a successful single currency would be good for prosperity, and particularly for jobs. The Treasury's assessment is that our measures to create employment and for welfare state reform must accompany any move to a single currency.
Ultimately, we conclude that whether a single currency is good for jobs in practice comes back to the question of sustainable convergence. A successful single currency would provide far greater trade and business in Europe. The Treasury assessment is that, in vital areas,
586
the economy is not yet ready for entry, and that much remains to be done. The previous policy of keeping options open without actively making preparations has left parts of the economy unprepared. Our overall assessment is that Britain needs both a period of preparation and a settled period of sustainable convergence—and both require stability.
Applying those five economic tests leads the Government to the following clear conclusions. British membership of a single currency in 1999 could not meet the tests, and therefore is not in the country's economic interests. There is no proper convergence between the British economy and other European economies now, and to try to join now would be to accept a monetary policy that would suit other European economies but not our own. We will therefore be notifying our European partners, in accordance with the Maastricht treaty, that we will not seek membership of the single currency on 1 January 1999.
The issue then arises as to the period after 1 January 1999. We could simply leave the options open as before, but with no clear direction either way for the rest of the Parliament. That would be politically easy, but it would be wrong. There would be instability and perpetual speculation about "in or out", "sooner or later", that would cause difficulties in the financial markets and for business and industry. It would make it harder to prepare for the possibility of a single currency because every step in preparation every time the issue was discussed would feed fresh bouts of speculation.
It must be in the country's interests to have a stable framework within which to plan. We are fortified in this because, on the economic tests that we have set out, the practical difficulties of joining a single currency in this Parliament all point to the same conclusion.
There is no need, legally, formally or politically, to renounce our option to join for the period between 1 January 1999 and the end of the Parliament—nor would it be sensible to do so. There is no requirement to do so under the treaty, and, what is more, no Government can ever predict every set of economic circumstances that might arise. What we can, and what we should, do is to state a clear view about the practicability of joining monetary union during that period.
In applying our economic tests, two things are clear: there is no realistic prospect of our having demonstrated before the end of this Parliament that we have achieved convergence that is sustainable and settled rather than transitory; and Government have only just begun to put in place the necessary preparations that would allow us to do so. Other countries have for some years been making detailed preparations for a single currency. For all the reasons given, we have not.
Therefore, barring some fundamental or unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision to join during this Parliament is not realistic. It is therefore sensible for business and the country to plan on the basis that, in this Parliament, we do not propose to enter a single currency.
There are those who urge us to seek consent in principle through a referendum now or soon, with a view to entry some time later. Any serious gap between the referendum and the actual entry date would undermine the conclusions of the referendum. Because the essential decision is economic, it can be taken only at a time when

587
the Government and the people can judge that sustainable convergence has been established. So, in our view, the interval between the decision to join and our joining must not be unduly protracted.
I have said that, if a single currency works and is successful, Britain should join it. We should therefore begin now to prepare ourselves so that, should we meet the economic tests, we can make a decision to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament. At present, with no preparation, that is not a practical option. We must put ourselves in a position where Britain can exercise genuine choice.
The questions of preparation are immense—practical questions for business as well as for Government. For example, euro notes and coins will be circulating across Europe from 1 January 2002. Some companies, such as Marks and Spencer, have already decided to accept euros in Britain; others will want advice on what is best for them.
Because both the Government and business must prepare intensively during the next few years, we will commence work on the detailed transition arrangements for the possible introduction of the euro in Britain, including notes and coins, should we wish to enter. We will step up the work on what business should do now to prepare for the introduction of the euro in 1999, whether we are in or out. We will work with business on what Government must do to prepare for EMU should we decide to join in the next Parliament.
To help with essential preparations, I have invited the Governor of the Bank of England and Sir Colin Marshall, president of the Confederation of British Industry, to join me and the President of the Board of Trade in leading a standing committee on preparations for EMU. I am pleased to say that they have agreed. I am also inviting the president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to join us.
I can also announce that, from January, a series of regional and sectoral conferences on preparations for monetary union will be held. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today decided to extend Lord Simon's Treasury responsibilities to include European business preparations in this Government, covering the long-term planning of the new standing committee.
In addition to those practical preparations, there are reforms we can make that are right in themselves in the national economic interest, and will help us to meet the five economic tests. We will promote greater flexibility in the UK economy and in Europe through the "getting Europe to work" initiative. We will introduce new competition legislation that draws on the best of European and wider international policy and practice, as well as continuing to negotiate to secure the best interests of our financial sector and for the opening up of the single market in financial services. We will set as one of the key objectives of our European presidency completion of the European single market.
In my Mansion House speech, I said that, if we succeeded in strengthening the ability of the British economy to sustain growth without inflation, and if international conditions permitted, I would hope to lower the inflation target. So we will monitor our inflation target, and will do so in the light of the European central bank. We will ensure that our fiscal rules and our deficit
588
reduction plan continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability pact, thus underlining our commitment to avoid an excessive deficit under article 104c of the treaty and supporting greater co-ordination in ECOFIN. In Britain's interests, we need to keep inflation low and public borrowing firmly under control.
The single currency will affect Britain, in or out. It is in the British national interest for it to work. Vital decisions will be made during our European presidency in the first half of next year. We will use our position constructively and supportively, and we will play a full part in ensuring that the single currency's launch is successful—something that is in Britain's interests as well as in Europe's interests.
To sum up, we believe that, in principle, British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and Europe; the key factor is whether the economic benefits of joining for business and industry are clear and unambiguous. If they are, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU.
Applying the economic tests, it is not in this country's interest to join in the first wave of EMU starting on 1 January 1999, and, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision in this Parliament to join is not realistic. To give ourselves a genuine choice in the future, it is essential that Government and business prepare intensively during this Parliament so that Britain will be in a position to join a single currency, should we wish to, early in the next Parliament.
On Europe, the time of indecision is over. The period for practical preparation has begun. Today we begin to build a new consensus—modern and outward looking—for a country that throughout its history has looked outward to the world. We are the first British Government to declare for the principle of monetary union, the first to state that there is no overriding constitutional bar to membership, the first to make clear and unambiguous economic benefit to this country the decisive test, the first to offer our strong and constructive support to our European partners to create more employment and more prosperity.
The policy that I have outlined will bring stability to business, direction to our economy and long-term purpose to our country. It is the right policy for Britain in Europe. More important, it is the right policy for the future of Britain. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Chancellor accept that his statement today was forced out of him by the confused, contradictory and improper briefings by his own office in recent weeks—briefings that have displayed contempt for the House, which should have been told first; contempt for financial probity by releasing to selected journalists market-sensitive information that caused turmoil in financial markets; and contempt for the truth, since the briefings, which we must assume he authorised, are shown, at least in part, to have been false? Would the Chancellor like to take this opportunity to apologise to the House and to the savers and pensioners whose investments have been put at risk by the cavalier way in which he has treated them?
I shall deal briefly with the confusion—the Chancellor's private office assured me today that he would deal with this in his statement, but he did not—that

589
led up to the statement. Who was the "unnamed Government Minister" quoted on 26 September in a Financial Times story which said that the Government would make a
"declaration shortly on UK entry soon after the EMU launch",
which caused the biggest movement in financial markets in recent times? Who was he? Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired? Does he know?
Why did the Chancellor allow a false market to persist for some three weeks before effectively repudiating that story? Does he realise that, if any private individual did that, they would be guilty of a very serious offence? Is the Chancellor aware—[Interruption.] Is the Chancellor aware of anything? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The Chancellor was heard. We have just been listening to a very crucial statement, a very serious statement. I hope that the House will deal with it as such.
Mr. Lilley: Is the Chancellor aware that I have just received a letter from the chairman of the Securities and Investments Board saying that he will look into some of the matters that I have raised, but that he cannot investigate the main allegation, because
"where allegations of market misconduct are of a criminal nature, they will not fall naturally for the SIB to pursue"?
Will the Chancellor and his staff co-operate with any inquiry by the market authorities or by the Treasury Select Committee?
Was not the confusion caused by the Financial Times story, amplified by the diverging statements that the Chancellor and his press officer gave to The Times on 18 October? Can the Chancellor tell the House whether he authorised his press secretary to give certain newspapers—not to mention the denizens of the Red Lion—information which should have been given to Parliament, and which was highly market-sensitive? Did he authorise that? Will he tell the House, yes or no? Can he now say whether he authorised the briefing by his press secretary?
If the Chancellor refuses to say that he authorised the briefing—if he dissociates himself from Mr. Whelan's announcement—surely Mr. Whelan should resign. If, however, the Chancellor accepts responsibility for the release of market-sensitive information, can he tell the House of any Treasury Minister who has released such information to a journalist and has subsequently remained in office?
It was that briefing that precipitated today's statement. The question is, was the policy forced to fit the briefing, or did the briefing reflect what was already settled Government policy?
Did the Foreign Secretary know before that briefing that this was Government policy? Did the President of the Board of Trade know that it was policy? Clearly not. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister had no idea that it was Government policy; we are pretty certain that the Secretary of State for Health did not know, when he appeared on television to defend it. Was the Prime Minister himself fully aware of what his Chancellor
590
intended to release? [Interruption.] I think that the Prime Minister is telling the Chancellor that his position is unassailable.
The fact is that the dither, dodge and denial of the past three weeks have been a rollercoaster ride on the stock market that has wiped billions of pounds from pensioners' savings. Is that what the Chancellor meant when he said that his priority was ensuring a "period of stability" in the financial markets? Can he now give the House a cast-iron assurance that, in future, the release of all market-sensitive information of this kind will be carried out by democratically accountable Ministers in the House, not by unelected spin doctors in secret briefings?
Now we turn to the substance of this belated statement—[Interruption.] I understand that Labour Members are embarrassed by the confusion and ambiguity of their previous briefings. The fact is, however, that, although we were promised an unambiguous and totally clear statement, even today's statement by the Chancellor allows the possibility of entry during the current Parliament, in the light of what the Chancellor calls a possible unexpected or "unforeseen change in … circumstances". Can he give us examples of circumstances that might cause him to change his mind? [Laughter.] Can he tell us the type of thing of which he is thinking? Is it not the case—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I would be obliged if the House would now come to order.
Mr. Lilley: Is it not the case that we now know when we probably will not enter the single currency, but do not know when, if ever, we will be ready to enter the single currency?
In essence, the Chancellor's policy remains that we will join when the time is right, but that it will probably not be during this Parliament. Does that move him forward? Is he not trying to have it both ways—trying to please those who do not want us to enter, including his friends in the Murdoch press, while declaring a commitment in principle to entry?
The Chancellor said that he will prepare the country and industry for entry, but there is nothing in his statement about one condition of entry that is laid down in the treaty: the two years' membership of the exchange rate mechanism. Why is there no mention of that? Is he saying that we will not abide by, or that he has sought a waiver of, that condition? If so, why is he afraid of Britain paddling in the shallow end, when he is prepared later to dive in the deep end of EMU?
Is the Chancellor planning in the next few years to apply for money from the European Union's propaganda fund to persuade the British people to abandon the pound? Has he already asked for such money? If he does so, does he intend that all sides of the argument should receive finance? Would it not be odd for the Government to accept European money given that they seek to ban foreign donations to political parties?
Is the Chancellor asking British industry to prepare now for entry at an unknown and unforeseeable date? Where does that leave small businesses: should they invest at this stage in cash registers and accounting systems to deal with the single currency?

591
The Chancellor said that he has five tests. The truth is that none of those tests is objective, measurable and capable of independent assessment. Does not the fact that the ERM would have passed all his five tests show that they are not a very effective measure?
Does the Chancellor not realise that this is the most momentous decision that this country will take? It is more significant than joining the ERM, than going back on to the gold standard in 1925 or than joining the Bretton Woods system: they all had an exit door, whereas the single currency is intended to be permanent and irrevocable. We must be convinced that it is good for Britain not just at a moment of time, but for all future time; that it will be beneficial not just in good times, but in bad times; and that it will benefit not only some companies, but the whole country.
The Chancellor's first test is the business cycle. He is right to say that our cycle is out of line with the rest of the Community. Surely he realises that it has been getting further out of step, and there is no reason to suppose that it will move back in step in the short term.
The Chancellor says that he wants more flexibility of labour markets. Why, by signing up to the social chapter, have we handed over to countries with inflexible labour markets the power to set our rules? Does he agree that France and Italy are moving towards less flexible labour markets, as they insist on legalising a 35-hour week and imposing that on their companies?
Financial services are an important part of our industry. Why does not the Chancellor refer to the danger mentioned in previous Treasury documents that membership of a single currency would mean centralisation of regulation of financial markets, which would deprive us of the flexible regulation that has enabled the City to become a pre-eminent financial centre not just in Europe but in the world?
The greatest weakness of the tests that the Chancellor has laid down is the absence of any political or constitutional test. He cannot wipe aside—as he tried to do in his preamble—the constitutional issue as if this matter merely concerned monetary policy. The key issue is whether entry into the single currency requires centralisation of taxation and of borrowing powers. Will there be the power at the centre to transfer resources from prosperous countries to those that are handicapped by joining the single currency?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that, to most of our continental partners, this is not primarily, or to some extent even at all, an economic venture, but a political venture? Does he not recognise that, up to now, there has never been a currency without a Government to run it, or a Government worthy of the name without a currency to run? The attempt to establish a single currency in Europe without a Government to run it is intended by many to be temporary, not permanent.
Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the Government stand on that pre-eminent issue? Does he want to see, will he connive in, will he agree to, the centralisation of political power over tax, borrowing and the transfer of resources to other countries in the single currency area? Until he answers that question, we cannot accept that it is right to sign up in principle to a single currency.
Mr. Brown: I shall answer the substantive points one by one.
592
It is remarkable that the shadow Chancellor of the Conservative party, which has been talking about this issue for 18 years, can come to the House, even after his session in Eastbourne last week, to draw conclusions, and not be able to tell us where the party stands on the issue of principle. Where does it stand not as to whether there are constitutional implications but as to whether there is a constitutional bar to membership? It cannot say whether the economic tests will be decisive, and the shadow Chancellor now tells us that he even opposes preparations for a single currency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer his questions."' I have to ask him these questions.
I have to ask the Conservative party these questions. Does it support the principle of a single currency? We do. The Conservative party cannot say, because it is divided. Does it believe that there is a constitutional bar to membership of a single currency? Some say yes, some say no. They cannot agree.
Do Conservatives believe that economic tests should be decisive in this matter? The shadow Chancellor could not tell us, but Conservatives must tell us what they believe. Equally, do they believe that sustainable convergence, once achieved, is a means by which we could move forward to a single currency? On each of those issues of principle, it was striking that the shadow Chancellor was absolutely silent: he did not address them.
I come to the shadow Chancellor's specific questions. He asked about what he called stock market movements in relation to statements. I shall read to him the letter that was sent to him by the Governor of the Bank of England. It states:
"Neither the Government nor its agent … benefited in any way from the recent movements in the gilt market … The movement you highlight—sterling's rise on Friday 17 October … was in our assessment unrelated to the interview that the Chancellor published in the Times the next day."
When he was reading the letter from the SIB, the right hon. Gentleman might have told us exactly what was in it—that there has been no notification of the determination of an infringement whatever. The shadow Chancellor would do better to withdraw his allegations.
I come now to specific questions. It is not our intention to join the ERM. There are no additional powers related to taxation in relation to the single currency; and, of course, on taxation matters there is the British veto. The shadow Chancellor asked in what circumstances we would change our view. I said precisely in my statement that they were unforeseen circumstances, which means that they cannot be foreseen. On the question of convergence, I made it absolutely clear—as I think the shadow Chancellor will acknowledge—that I was not talking about convergence at one point in time as being the decisive test for a single currency. I was talking about a sustained and durable period of convergence—a settled period of convergence—which in our view would be necessary.
It comes back to this one question. We say that, if the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous, in the national interest, we should join, if the public are prepared to support it. The shadow Chancellor cannot say whether, even if the economic benefits to the country were compelling in terms of jobs, industry and commerce—even if it were proven to him that those economic benefits were compelling—he would be prepared to recommend joining. In other words, whether it be for reasons of

593
division, dogma or anti-Europeanism on the part of the Conservative party, the national interest would come second to sorting out its internal problems.
The leader of the Conservative party reflects those problems. He said at one stage that it would not join the single currency on principle. Then he said that it would not join for 30 or 40 years. Then he said that it would not join for five years. Then he said that it would not join for the foreseeable circumstances. Now he says from Eastbourne that it will not join for two Parliaments. That is a recipe whereby there will be no Conservative Government for five years, for 10 years, for 40 years, for all the foreseeable circumstances.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We Liberal Democrats can and do accept much of the tone, and some of the substance, of the Chancellor's statement. If the Chancellor and the Government are aiming to build a national consensus in favour of a single currency, they will have our unqualified support, but, if that is to be achieved, does he not accept that we need some clarity and some leadership, and that beneath the warm words in his statement there is still doubt and indecision?
Does the Chancellor not accept that he is effectively saying that Britain will not join monetary union in this Parliament? He has not bolted the door, but it does now appear to have been closed. Does he not remember saying in July that Britain should take its decisions on EMU for economic reasons and
"not on the basis of a timetable that has been set politically"?
But is not today's statement all about setting a political timetable?
Does the Chancellor no longer agree with the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry that there is "no economic case" for ruling out entry to the single currency in this Parliament? Does he really believe that business will invest valuable time and money in something as uncertain and distant as what he is offering today? Does he really expect business to make that commitment? Can he not accept that, despite the good intentions in the statement, the danger is that it risks replacing a strategy of "wait and see" with one of "wait, and wait, and wait"?
If that is true, will Britain's economic interests not be fundamentally damaged? The five economic tests that the Chancellor has set out are so elastic that they could stretch to the moon and back. Will he not explain how they are to be met in terms that people can understand, so that they can make a judgment as to when and how entry will be made?
Finally, will the Chancellor recognise that, if we leave ourselves out for this Parliament and, by implication, for much of the next Parliament, we rule ourselves out of giving a lead to shaping monetary union in terms of achieving convergence and being successful? Does not the national interest require us to be there?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the debate. I will tell him where we are agreed. We are agreed on the principle. We are agreed that there is no constitutional bar to membership, that national economic interest must be the decisive test, and that we should prepare to join; but the question that I have
594
to ask him is whether he believes that we should join irrespective of whether it can be demonstrated that there is sustainable convergence. It is a question whether we get it right or we get it quickly.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that it is important to get it quickly. I suggest to him that, for the British national interest, it is important to get it right. That is the only disagreement on this issue between him and me. The setting of an artificial economic or calendar timetable for Britain in this matter—when he knows perfectly well that, under the previous Government, preparations were not made, and that the business cycle is out of synch with that of our continental partners—is not in the best interests of Britain.
Where the hon. Gentleman should agree with us is that a national consensus can now be built on the need to take the preparations actively that are necessary, so that, if the country so wishes, it can join a single currency early in the next Parliament.
Mr. Giles Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and the Government deserve great credit for committing themselves to the principle of a single currency and for putting forward a programme of preparation which will, I hope, enable us to join it? In short, in that respect, today's statement is an historic step forward for this country.
My right hon. Friend knows that I share the concerns of the CBI and the TUC that the Government are virtually ruling out joining a single currency in the lifetime of this Parliament. May I just add that, the longer we wait to join a successful single currency, the more we are at risk of being marginalised not only in Europe but in the world?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a long-standing supporter of the European cause and who has written widely on such matters. I am sure that it is true to say that he would have liked to join the single currency in January 1999, but he must accept that, while we agree on the principle and agree that there is no constitutional bar, the fact is that the proper preparations for Britain were never made under the previous Government. The structural and other reforms that are necessary to bring us to the point of decision have not been made.
It is not realistic to plan on the basis that we will join in this Parliament, and the reasons for that must be absolutely clear to people who have listened to the statement today: it is stability that matters; we must achieve sustainable convergence, and that cannot be achieved overnight; and we must make the proper preparations as a country. Once the country looks at the analysis by the Treasury on the whole question of economic tests, it will agree with what I have said today.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Does the Chancellor agree that the bizarre incompetence of his team a week ago has forced him to come to the House and concede, as I have long suspected, that he essentially agrees with me on the main point of this great issue?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if the other member states of the European Union go ahead with economic and monetary union, and if they create a sound monetary structure, it is inevitable, sooner or later, that it will be in this country's interests to join that economic

595
and monetary union? If we mishandle the timing of that decision, we run the risk of a period when we will have second-rate economic prospects, when this country will be a second choice for inward investment, and when we will play a second-division role in the affairs of the European Union.
If what we are considering today is the handling and the timing of that decision and what is or is not foreseeable, does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the timetable that he suddenly produced today to put flesh on the bones of Charlie Whelan's timetable of a week ago has nothing to do with a lack of preparation, because he inherited contingency work which he is now bringing to fruition in the Treasury where he took over? It also has nothing to do with when our economy is synchronised with those on the continent, which is extremely important but unforeseeable, but has everything to do with the obsession of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor with the management of the press, Rupert Murdoch's press in particular, and the fact that they are in a total panic about when and how they will face a referendum, if they ever get around to joining.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that approach causes great damage to the very stability that he says he wants to see in our affairs; causes great damage to people's confidence in this country's economic prospects; and causes immense damage to any confidence in the decision-handling abilities of himself and his right hon. Friend?
Mr. Brown: The former Chancellor says that he agrees with me; his problem is that he does not agree with the leader of his party. In fact, very few in his parliamentary party agree with him. I said earlier that I was the first Chancellor in a Government to say that we supported the principle of monetary union, but that is not strictly true: the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he supported it, but the problem was that he was speaking in a personal capacity. It was not the then Government's official policy—and now we find that even the Prime Minister of that Government did not agree with the official policy at the time.
We are agreed on the principle. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that preparations have been properly in hand—perhaps he did not tell the then Prime Minister about what he was planning in the Treasury at the time—but I can tell him that we are not prepared to enter a single currency, and that preparations have not been made here as they have been made in other European countries. If he reflects on it for a minute, he will recognise that that is the case.
We have to be satisfied that we have met the five economic tests that I set out. If we do so, it will be appropriate to put the question to the country, but if we cannot, it would be irresponsible for a Government to recommend entry, and I will not do so. We will make a decision only when we know that we can meet the substantial economic tests that we have set out: that will be the true test of national economic interest.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be remembered not for its economic analysis but because he has told us that the Government believe that the electors have no right to determine our economic policy through the ballot box,
596
that Parliament has no right to play a part in determining that policy, and that the Government will not in future claim to control the key levers of power that determine our people's standard of living? On that question, fundamental differences cut across all parties.
With 18.5 million unemployed in the European Union, few people will accept that the move into a deflationary system will be beneficial. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the issue is probably the most important to face this generation, so will he give a categorical assurance on behalf of the Government that, when the debate takes place, all members of his party and everyone else will be able to speak their mind on every aspect of European policy without any gags being imposed to prevent them from expressing an honest opinion?
Mr. Brown: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has been prevented from speaking his mind for some time. On unemployment, it is precisely because of that problem that we have a welfare-to-work programme; we are dealing with that issue. On the consent of the British people, I think that he would recognise that our decision to hold a referendum if a recommendation is made by Government and approved by Parliament means that the people will have the final say. That is absolutely as it should be.
Sir Michael Spicer: If one gives up all control of interest rates, exchange rates, money supply, national reserves and—through the stability pact—fiscal policy, has not one ceased to be an independent nation state?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. There is no question of our giving up our ability to make decisions on tax and spending. That is what we do, and will continue to do, through our Budgets. This afternoon we have seen the two sections of the Conservative party: the one, led by the former Chancellor, is for going in almost immediately, and the other is for never going in at all.
The shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Conservative party tried to bridge the gap by saying that entry would take 10 years. On what basis? If it is wrong in principle, why do they not rule it out for 100 years? If it is not wrong in principle but depends on the economic situation, why do they not apply the economic tests exactly as we do? The Conservative party must grow up.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If one wants to catch a train, is it not prudent to get on that train at the point of departure rather than trying to catch up with it when it is well on its journey? Is it not, and I say this very sadly, an historic mistake not to go in on 1 January 1999? What did John Monks, speaking on behalf of the General Council of the TUC, tell my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a long-standing supporter of European integration, but I have to tell him that his proposal for 1 January 1999 is not a realistic prospect. Interest rates in Britain are 7 per cent., while on the continent they are 3 per cent. There is no convergence of the economic cycle that could make entry in 1999 possible. We have to make a decision based on the economic tests that we are applying.

597
On that basis, it is not a realistic prospect, in our view, to decide to join then, nor is it a realistic prospect to decide to join during the course of this Parliament, barring something unforeseen. I believe that, when he considers those issues—and particularly the Treasury assessment—on all the economic tests, my hon. Friend will agree that 1999 is unrealistic. I think that he will find John Monks and the TUC supportive of the facts that we favour the principle and that we will make proper preparations so that a decision by the country to join can be made at an appropriate time.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Chancellor agree that, following the report in the Financial Times at the end of September, a false market in shares was created? Does he agree that the principal cause of that was the remarks of an unnamed Minister to the effect that early entry to the single currency was to be anticipated? Given that a false market had been created and could have been dispelled, why did not the Chancellor make his position clear much earlier—or had he not made his mind up?
Mr. Brown: I must refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the letters from the Bank of England and the Securities and Investments Board on his points about the shares market. On making definitive statements, with the detailed assessment, I have done it, as people would have expected me to do, in very great detail, and I have done it in a statement to this House.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Chancellor agree that the country will welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) described as an historic decision? It is historic because the principle of entering into a single currency is confirmed and the option of not entering is foreclosed. Does he agree that the City will be pleased to hear that the Government will adhere to the stability pact? The emphasis on preparation and convergence will be important.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that preparation will mean that the time lag between the decision to enter the single currency and actual entry after getting the approval of the people in a referendum will be reduced, so that we can play the part that the Prime Minister has described at the heart of the Europe, influencing European affairs?
Mr. Brown: I am glad that my hon. Friend realises the importance of preparation—something that has been lost on the Conservatives. It is very important that the standing committee that we have set up with the Governor of the Bank of England, the president of the CBI and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce gets to work to look at these issues in great detail and to make recommendations to us. We would be failing in our duty if we did not set up that committee and make preparations now.
My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the City of London and financial services. It is one of the tests that we are applying on entry to monetary union that jobs in the City and in financial services, which are a rising part of employment in our economy, can be enhanced by a decision to enter.
On the general question of jobs, I believe that our test on jobs is the most important one for the British people. We are pressing right across Europe, through our plans for the
598
special employment summit and other things, for Europe to direct its attention to solving the problems of unemployment.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Chancellor accept that we in Plaid Cymru see considerable benefit from being in the single currency for industry, agriculture and home owners, always provided that there is a real mechanism to deal with regional discrepancy? There is as great a need to deal with that, both in the UK and in other parts of Europe, as there is to deal with convergence between states in Europe. In his statement, the Chancellor did not refer to dealing with regional disparity. Will he now address it, and accept that we would very much like to have been in the single currency in 1999, as the Irish Republic will be?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support of the statement of principle and the practical measures that we are taking for preparation. Unemployment and regional policy are right at the heart of the debate about EMU. If he looks at the Treasury's economic assessment, he will find that the worries about flexibility relate to the ability of regions and parts of the European economy to withstand any shocks that may arise owing to changes in their economic circumstances. It is precisely for those reasons that we must be satisfied that there is an ability to adjust to change within the European economies so that regions cannot and do not lose out at a time of great economic change.
It is most important for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and other regions of this country that we attack the persistent problems of unemployment and the lack of skills in the economy—it is central to our test for economic and monetary union that progress is made in those areas. Our proposals for education and training, which have come from the Department for Education and Employment—and from the Welsh Office in the case of the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—and our proposals for reform of the welfare state are vital if we are to put our economy on the right lines.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that it is not a good idea to catch the first train that leaves the station as it might be run by Branson and get you nowhere? Does he accept that the issue of the Common Market and the European Union has blighted every Government for the past 30 years? He is right to be careful about the progress that is being made at this time. When the previous Government decided to join the exchange rate mechanism last time and we were taken in by the previous Prime Minister but one, wonderful, meticulous preparations had been made. However, notwithstanding that, 16 September 1992 ended in a calamity for Britain—£10 billion was lost, the Prime Minister was locked in a lavatory and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was running about trying to find a portable radio to discover the Financial Times index. I hope that that will be etched in my right hon. Friend's memory. Although he is not catching this train, he wants to be careful about catching the next one.
Mr. Brown: It is precisely because of the danger of making economic decisions on political grounds that we are going to be absolutely careful, both about the preparations to make a decision on monetary union and about insisting

599
that the economic tests are met. When my hon. Friend looks at the documentation provided he will see that in relation to the business cycle, flexibility, employment and investment, we must be satisfied that the economic tests that we have set down for both convergence and sustainable monetary union are met. It is part of my job at the Treasury to ensure that.
Mr. John Butterfill: I wish to question the right hon. Gentleman on convergence, particularly the convergence of interest rates. He has said today that interest rates in this country are more than double those in continental Europe. There clearly needs to be convergence before we can enter and it is also clear that it is fairly unlikely that interest rates on the continent will rise significantly over the intervening period. Is the right hon. Gentleman giving a commitment today that there will be a progressive reduction in British interest rates? Is that his policy as from today? If so, how will he deal with the problems of inflation? Will he reduce public expenditure or increase taxation?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should understand—I hope that he does not misunderstand this—that there is no weakening of the inflation target. I have said that if we can make a success of our economic reforms, over time I should like to reduce the inflation target. It is precisely because interest rates have diverged—in Britain, to deal with an incipient inflationary problem that we inherited from the previous Government—that it is not realistic either to enter in 1999 or to make a decision to enter by the end of this Parliament. The aspects that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in relation to convergence are not only making progress—our institutional reforms in the Bank of England to get control of inflation and our fiscal deficit reduction plan to get control over public borrowing are essential in the national economic interest. That is the policy that we shall pursue.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Now that the decision has been taken, is my right hon. Friend aware that we must avoid any parallel with the situation 40 years ago, when we failed to become a member of the Community, and accepted disadvantageous conditions on our subsequent entry? I would like to ask one question in particular: how will he deal with the danger of decisions crucial to us being taken against our own national interest?
Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in these matters over time, ought to be reassured about two things. First, our statement of principle today—the first statement of principle on a single currency made by a British Government—will send a signal to our continental neighbours that we are serious about the project. Secondly, I am determined that economic decisions are made in the ECOFIN Council—the Council of Finance Ministers—and I will continue to make proposals to ensure that that is the case.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we missed opportunities in the past; we must not miss opportunities again, but we must make sure that, in seizing the opportunities available, we are sure that the economic benefits can come to this country and sure that the economic tests that we set down are not passed over to meet an artificial timetable, but are actually met.
Mr. Robert Jackson: I agree with the Government that popular consent is necessary before we
600
can enter monetary union. Is the Government's commitment to a referendum as the device for securing that popular consent absolute; or is it possible, in the Government's view, that that requirement could be met by getting a mandate in a general election?
Mr. Brown: I said that it was the policy of the Government to put us in a position where a real choice, after preparations had been made, could be made early in the next Parliament. That is based on our assessment of the economic difficulties and the problems of preparation that we must now face. I said that there would be a referendum at that time if the Government made a recommendation and if Parliament so decided.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I am delighted that he has placed so much emphasis on participation in a successful monetary union, because it will not be successful. It would be a mistake to rush to buy a non-flying pig in a deflationary poke.
As the attempt to go into monetary union in Europe—even if we are not going to be part of it—will cause uncertainties, what are my right, hon. Friend's plans for these foreseen circumstances? First, there is the uncertainty as to whether or not monetary union takes place. Secondly, there is the uncertainty about whether it is a hard or a soft euro and a wide or narrow monetary union. Thirdly, there is uncertainty created by what amounts to a speculators' charter, like the ERM, once rates are fixed before the euro emerges in 2002. The danger is that all that will bring a flight of funny money from Europe and its uncertainties into the pound to push sterling higher. How can we cope with that?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend should bear it in mind that one of the purposes of a common currency is to avoid systematic currency speculation between 15 or a number of different currencies on the European continent, and that, in the long term, the development of a single currency would work against the speculators and not in their favour. He is right to say that a time is needed to assess how monetary union is working, as well as a time for preparation for Britain. I hope that he will agree that that is what we are doing.
However, I challenge my hon. Friend's analysis that our economic policy in Britain is in any way being imposed by policies from other parts of Europe. The decisions we have made on interest rates and public borrowing are the decisions that are right for Britain. We must get away from a situation in which we have a stop-go economy—where, every time we expand, inflation rises, we have to cut back, and we end up with the boom and bust cycle that caused so much damage during the Conservative years. It is to get away from Conservative instability that we have put in place the policies we have.
Mr. John Swinney: The Chancellor has laboured the points on convergence, and they are obviously important, but does he recognise the concern felt in the Scottish economy about the fact that the interest rate policy being pursued by the Bank of England and the Government is higher than is required by the Scottish economy, which is not experiencing the overheating seen in the economy of the south-east of England?

601
There would be many economic advantages to exporters and the Scottish business community from earlier entry into a single currency. What would the Chancellor like to say to those in the business community in Scotland to enhance their preparations for the single currency and to give them any more certainty than ever existed when the Conservatives were in power?
Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants separate currencies in the United Kingdom or a single currency in Europe—he is not absolutely clear about what his policy is. However, I can tell him that this Government's policies to tackle the problems of unemployment in Scotland and the problems that cause unemployment, which include the lack of skills in Scotland, and to deal with some of the structural problems of the Scottish economy are the policies that are best suited to getting people in Scotland back to work.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: In stating the criteria very clearly, my right hon. Friend also made the point that it is important that we get it right, rather than that we go in quickly. Will he bear in mind the fact that, for some industries in this country, and some people whose jobs depend on those industries, the prospect of not going in quickly presents great difficulty, because we are labouring under the problems of an overvalued currency and fluctuating interest rates? In getting it right, will he make sure that not too many jobs are lost too quickly as a consequence?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has an important role in the House as Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and he is right to draw attention to any difficulties facing industry resulting from the inflation generated by the policies of the previous Government. I am aware that it is more important to get it right than to get it quickly; however, I understand that what people need is a framework within which to plan, and that is why we have made the decisions we have announced today. There will be a time of preparation, followed by a time of decision.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I welcome very much the unambiguous commitment to the referendum given by the Chancellor today. Will he make it abundantly clear that, while preparations are being made for joining in the event of the single currency being a success, he will make comparable proposals and preparations in the event of the single currency turning out to be an almighty disaster—as some of us think it might? Will he bear it in mind that there is a sincerely held and deep-rooted feeling among members of all parties in the House of Commons that a single European state, without democracy and based on a single currency, will inevitably result in mass unemployment, misery and the sort of instability that we saw at the time of the gold standard?
Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants us to make preparations not to join, but I have to tell him that the single currency will affect us whether we are in or out, and it is important that the nation addresses itself to both the difficulties and the opportunities that arise from it. As I said in my statement, only a few days ago Marks and Spencer announced measures that it was taking, and
602
yesterday National Westminster bank announced training measures in respect of the euro. It is not right for Conservative Members to ask us to have our heads in the sand when events are occurring that affect us directly.
As for our policies on the economy, the policies that we are pursuing to tackle inflation, to keep borrowing under control and to create jobs through reform of the welfare state, are right for Britain anyway.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, if a hard core of countries proceed with EMU at an early stage—before the United Kingdom does so—the inevitable consequence will be a large volume of euro currency circulating within the United Kingdom before the next general election? Personally, I would welcome that.
Does it not follow that, before the next election and before the referendum, many firms in the United Kingdom may well be paying salaries in euro currency, and perhaps even entering into transactions at retail level? In many ways, the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend, which is based on consensus, will ease the path towards the inevitable decision, which I believe will be in favour.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes an important and telling point both about the need to prepare and about the fact that this matter will affect us. It is true that euro notes and coins will be in circulation on 1 January 2002—indeed, it may be earlier than that if certain decisions are made—and, although I cannot say when the next election will be, it is possible that it might be held before or after that date. The fact of the matter is that it affects us; we have to be alert to that fact, and we have to prepare. That shows the wisdom of a new policy from the Government today to make preparations.
Mr. William Thompson: Does not the Chancellor's statement today about active preparations for a single currency in effect mean that the Government have taken a decision to go in? Will the markets not see it as that, and will business men not see it as that? More important, does not the decision today prejudice any referendum that will be held, because the Government will then say, "All the preparations are made; we can't say no now"?
Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge the importance of the European Union, not just in other areas of the continent, but in Northern Ireland, through the work of the European investment bank and other institutions. But I have to tell him that, if we have a Government—as we do—who support the principle of monetary union, who see no constitutional bar to joining, but who realise that the nation is in many ways ill prepared even to take a final decision on these matters, it is right to make these preparations, and that is what we will do. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman: the European monetary union affects us whether we are in or out, and I would be failing in my duty as Chancellor if we did not make the preparations to deal with that.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that rather greater constitutional issues are involved than perhaps his statement indicates? For example, surely a decision that will lead to imposing public expenditure limits and public borrowing limits on all future British Governments is a constitutional issue. If it is a constitutional issue of such

603
significance, is that not the reason why, rightly, my right hon. Friend and the Government are offering a referendum: because it is not only an economic issue, but a constitutional one, that we put to a referendum?
Mr. Brown: I think that, when my hon. Friend reads my statement in detail, he will see that it says that I accept that there are constitutional implications. What I do not accept is that there is a constitutional bar that outweighs the economic tests as the decisive reason why we might join a single currency. As for his point about public expenditure and taxation, I repeat to him: the measures that we have taken both in the Budget, and in the decisions on other issues around Budget time on public expenditure and everything else, are the measures that are right for Britain. It is right that we follow the fiscal rules that we have set down. These are rules that we set for ourselves.
The decisions that we have taken about inflation and interest rates are also decisions that we have taken for Britain. They are within the terms of the stability pact and within the likely operation of monetary union, and I do not see an inconsistency between pursuing the policies that are right for Europe and the policies of convergence that can make possible a decision on monetary union.
Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Chancellor tell the House what the constitutional implications are of British membership of economic and monetary union, to which he apparently attaches so little importance?
Mr. Brown: I said—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also read my statement—that we are talking about a pooling of economic sovereignty. I do not deny that that is the case. If monetary union takes place, interest rates are set at a European level and there is European action to deal with the problems of inflation, but I do not myself see that that is a bar to monetary union—that there is a constitutional bar to it. Instead, I believe that the economic advantages outweigh the constitutional implications that no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would want to emphasise.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The Chancellor referred to setting up a committee of the Governor of the Bank of England, the heads of the CBI and TUC and the heads of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to discuss this issue, but I invite him to go a little further, because we need to decontaminate the whole terrain of European discussion, which has been poisoned by five years of xenophobic anti-Europeanism, of which we have heard no little expression again this afternoon.
I invite my right hon. Friend to look to the regions: in my constituency, great exporting firms such as British Steel and Beatsons Clark will welcome this clear statement of principle. I invite him to look to the universities; to the representatives of all the employees involved in this. They, too, can take part in this discussion and preparation, so that, when the decision comes, we are ready for it, having made up for the ground lost as a result of the anti-European hostilities of the Conservative party.
Mr. Brown: One of the problems with what happened during the time in office of the previous Government was that, not only were no preparations made to the necessary level, but no information was flowing about the practical implications of monetary union. As my hon. Friend may
604
know, during the summer we published a pamphlet on the pros and cons of monetary union for business. We published a major study on that, and set up a business advisory committee.
Today I have announced that there will be regional conferences for my hon. Friend's region, for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales, in which the practical implications of monetary union can be discussed. I believe that that is the responsible way to proceed.
Mr. Howard Flight: What the Chancellor has said today is dramatically different from that which appeared on 26 September in the Financial Times. I should like to know why the Chancellor did not contradict it at the time, if Government policy was as described today. I should like to know that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister realise that they have lost the confidence of the financial community that they have been talking about, not just in London but elsewhere, and I should like the Chancellor to assure the House that, on matters as serious as this, leaks of the sort that we have had this summer will cease.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should note that I have come to the House at the earliest available opportunity. I have made a detailed statement, and published the Treasury assessment. I would say to him that none of that detailed assessment published by the Treasury appeared in any newspaper before we came to the House.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that most industrialists in a constituency such as mine believe that it is essential that we should get into the single currency as soon as possible. They recognise that 1 January 1999 is impossible because of the failures of the previous Government. The commitment that has been given today now needs a commitment from those industries that invest and keep jobs in this country, because I believe that it is an important commitment on both sides and will benefit places such as Burnley, and the whole of the country, in the years ahead.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he reflects the views of industry and business in this country that Britain should not be left behind on vital issues of principle affecting the future of our economy. It is for these reasons that the preparations will start, it is for these reasons that there is a consultative committee with business, and it is for these reasons that the standing committee has been set up.
The Conservatives' failure to say that the test of monetary union will be the economic benefits—indeed, their view that, even if benefits could be proven for monetary union, they would still be against it—shows that they are now the anti-business party in Britain.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Given the right hon. Gentleman's comments on strengthening employment and improving the competitive situation, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer now advise the House to reject the employment chapter of the Amsterdam treaty, and will he inform the House whether he consulted the Governor of the Bank of England before briefing The Times on 18 October?
Mr. Brown: I am in regular contact with the Governor of the Bank of England about many issues. As far as the

605
employment chapter of the Amsterdam treaty is concerned, we take some pride in the fact that employment issues have become central to the discussions of the European Union.
I still have not heard an answer to the question whether the Conservative party still wants a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty—one of the other proposals that came from the leader of the Conservative party.
As far as employment is concerned, the British Government are leading in Europe in making issues related to employment, and skills and education for employment, central to the European agenda; that is absolutely right.
Mr. John Hutton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which I warmly welcome, and on his clear rejection of the Luddite economics of the Conservative party. Is it not a matter of plain common sense that any decision on the part of the British Government to join a single currency should be based on the economic evidence that prevails at the time, not on the basis of any arbitrary timetable, which now appears to be Conservative party policy?
Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is now Conservative party policy that the Conservatives will not join a single currency or consider it for two Parliaments. They have been unable to explain, since the excitement of their get-together at Eastbourne, why they have retreated from their previous view that they would not enter in the foreseeable future, and suddenly it became 10 years. Indeed, the retreat to Eastbourne became the Eastbourne retreat on policy as a result of what they had decided.
It is economic logic that will take the decision as far as the Government are concerned, and until the Conservatives make up their minds whether they support the single currency on principle, they are like people without a route map, and they will inevitably get lost.
Sir Edward Heath: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his whole-hearted commitment, and that of the Government, to a single currency is extremely welcome, and that it will be widely welcomed by industry and by finance in this country, by Europeans, and by all those who have invested here from outside?
On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept the single currency immediately and to become one of the first members participating in it is bitterly disappointing. He and the Government will lose all influence in the European Union in all financial questions and in everything concerned with the single currency—he cannot expect or hope for any influence. That means that the other countries that are debating it and settling it will have their own way. What is more, there will be a general loss of respect for the British among all the other member countries because the right hon. Gentleman has decided to take no action.
606
Secondly, is the Chancellor aware that he will now find it extremely difficult to keep up the pressure in the way he claims to desire? I cannot have much confidence in a committee that contains the Governor of the Bank of England, who said at the IMF Hong Kong conference, "Why is everybody in a hurry?" That does not seem to be a sign of someone working towards the end which the Chancellor himself wants.
I am one of those who was here in 1950, and I cannot banish from my mind the recollection of the ghastly blunder made by Mr. Attlee and his Chancellor of the Exchequer when they refused to have anything to do with the initial negotiations over the Coal and Steel Community. The result was that we were left outside all the institutions for 22 years, until I signed the treaties in Brussels in 1972. During those 22 wasted years, we had not a scrap of influence. [Interruption.] I quite understand the attitude of my colleagues who say that we should never have joined at all—because they have lost the day.
The Chancellor should also bear in mind the fact that a perfect match of economies will never be achieved outside the single currency; it will come only when countries are inside the currency. That will force them to take the measures necessary to bring about the unity which the Chancellor rightly requires.
Mr. Brown: Despite some of his comments, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for continuing to argue the case in principle for monetary union over many years. We are agreed that monetary union is a good thing in principle if its economic benefits can be proven. We are further agreed that there is no constitutional bar to joining; and the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be wrong of the Government to put their head in the sand, and that we should make proper preparations so that we can reach the point of decision.
I would part company with the right hon. Gentleman in that I do not think it right for the Government to join without being sure that the economic benefits to the British economy can be shown to be obvious. We must pass the necessary economic tests before locking ourselves into what will be a major change in the way our economy works. The tests that we have set—on convergence, flexibility and the effect on jobs—would have to be met before it would be responsible to argue that we should definitively go in.
The Europeans will be pleased that we have made this statement of principle. It was the right thing to do. They will also be pleased that we have removed any constitutional bar to joining and that we are making preparations. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that it is right to have the Bank of England represented on a committee looking at euro coins and euro notes. The Europeans will be happy that we are making active preparations to join.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sure that we will return to this question, but Members must understand that it is quite impossible to call everyone who has an interest. We have had a good exchange of views in the past hour and a half.

Points of Order
5.3 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you know that I tabled an application under Standing Order No. 24 to adjourn the House so as to enable it to debate the fact that the Government are gagging Euro Members on matters of major constitutional importance. Your Secretary informed me that you had decided not to allow me to move that application. I told your Secretary that that power was not obvious in the text of the Standing Order. Indeed, the Standing Orders were redrafted in March of this year.
Your Secretary, Madam Speaker, was good enough to refer me to the statement that your predecessor made in 1991, when he held that the Speaker had a power not to allow such applications even though that was not apparent in the text of the Standing Order.
You will appreciate, Madam Speaker, that there have been many occasions when the Government have made announcements outside the House; and I am sure that you would not wish to prevent Back Benchers from raising issues of constitutional importance. You will also be aware that the Procedure Committee, at the end of the 1980s, did not wish to give the Speaker the power that your predecessor asserted existed.
In these circumstances, will you look again, Madam Speaker, at your predecessor's ruling, to determine whether it is still appropriate? If you decide that it still is, can you suggest to those who draft the Standing Orders that the fact that you have such a power should be apparent in the Standing Orders themselves?
Madam Speaker: In the first place, it is not the procedure of this House that any hon. Member who has made an application to me under Standing Order No. 24
608
should raise it on the Floor of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Member and former Minister, and I would have expected him to understand the procedures of the House.
Secondly, it is not incumbent upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman to repeat a conversation that took place between my office and him. My office tries to assist hon. Members, and I deprecate the repetition of such conversations on the Floor of the House.
I have no wish to embarrass the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have to tell him that his Standing Order No. 24 application did not even reach first base. If he considers that an issue of parliamentary privilege or contempt has arisen, he should write to me, and I will then consider the matter. Apart from that, I see nothing in what he is saying that should properly engage the Speaker of this House.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the freedom of Members of this House, and I should be grateful for your ruling.
When my party was in government, I noted that hon. Members from both sides of the House went around planting oral questions—a practice you and I both deprecate. You can therefore imagine my surprise when, this afternoon in the Table Office, I was given a question by the Member who I believe to be the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister without Portfolio, who asked me to raise this planted question with that very Minister. Will you rule that asking Opposition or Government Members to raise planted questions is quite improper?
Madam Speaker: I would have looked forward enormously not just to the question but to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, because that is when the knife goes in. I am sure that Ministers will have learnt their lesson.

Defence Policy
Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 29th July (Gulf War Illnesses), HC 222-i, and 30th July (Strategic Defence Review), HC 138-i, and the First Special Report from the Defence Committee (Government Replies to First to Sixth Reports of Session 1996–97: HC 94 (Sale of the Married Quarters Estate), HC 211 (The Army Terms of Service (Amendment) Regulations (S.L, 1996 No. 2973)), HC 142 (Defence Medical Services), HC 127 (Defence Spending), HC 233 (Heavy Lift) and HC 158 (Gulf War Illnesses: Latest Developments)), HC 153.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
5.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): It is a great honour to address the House in my first defence debate as Secretary of State for Defence.
Our armed forces and the civil servants and other civilians who support them are a great credit to our country. Wherever they are called upon to serve in the world, from the Falklands to Bosnia, from Iraq to Northern Ireland—and many other places, too—they earn the respect of those whom they are called upon to defend. They perform a difficult and often dangerous task with great distinction, and it is my privilege to pay tribute to them today.
Those brave men and women are now participating in our strategic defence review, which is the central part of the Government's defence policy. When I launched the review at the end of May, I said that I wanted it to be open and inclusive, unlike the secretive and often partial reviews of the recent past.
I firmly believe that there is a consensus on defence in the British nation, and I want the review to reflect it. The British people are tired of petty squabbling by politicians over important national matters where little real division exists. My confidence that such a consensus exists has led me to embark on an unprecedented amount of consultation in this review. I am sure that it will be possible to establish a wide base of support for the conclusions that the review will eventually reach.
The consultation process has a number of strands. First and most important, we are holding this two-day debate in the House so that hon. Members can give their views on the priorities that Britain should set for its security policy and armed forces. My Ministers and I will listen with great care to what is said during the debate. Secondly, in the run-up to the debate, the Foreign Secretary and I held two open seminars attended by the principal Opposition spokespeople and others, and I shall hold a third seminar shortly. Thirdly, I invited anyone with an interest to submit his or her views in writing, and so far we have received more than 450 contributions. Of those, some 370 authors have given permission for their contributions to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, where they are now available for reference. Another consultation with a panel of individuals, both expert and non-expert in defence matters, and with the armed forces, is also in hand.
In addition to what I say today, I outlined the Government's thinking in recent speeches that I made to the English Speaking Union and the Royal United Services Institute, and those will be available in the Libraries of the House.
610
All that is in stark contrast to the methods used by Governments in the recent past. This review is different: we are consulting, so let no one say that they have not had a chance to express their view in this open review process. We have listened to many people in the past five and a half months, and I shall now outline some of the Government's views on our security priorities.
We believe that the British are by inclination internationalist, not isolationist. When the British people voted new Labour on 1 May, they did so in part because they trusted us to represent them in the great councils of the world. The British people also trusted new Labour because they believed that we would protect and improve the tools that underpin Britain's place in the world, particularly our armed forces, which are held in such high regard abroad. We will not betray the trust of the British people.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In that case, why did not the video of new Britain shown to Commonwealth leaders at the Edinburgh summit mention Her Majesty's forces?
Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman is as obsessed as some of his colleagues seem to be with those videos, he will realise that the Commonwealth is not an institution with a defence dimension. Perhaps he suggests that it should have one. The Government's commitment to our armed forces and the job that they do is beyond question.
Just as we are determined to play a positive and active role within the European Union, so we shall play a leading role in NATO and the United Nations. The transatlantic link remains vital to our defence and our country, so we can and will be involved in the world. We shall not stand aside from the new threats and problems that face the international community because that is not our way. We intend to be persuaders for our values and points of view. Britain will continue to be a force for good in the world.
Such a role, however, carries obligations. If we are to discharge them properly, we must have well-equipped, modern, capable armed forces, able to counter the problems that we are likely to encounter in the 21st century. The Opposition patently missed that vital point in all their long years in government.
The world has changed fundamentally in the past 10 years. The fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Warsaw pact removed the monolithic threat facing the peoples of Europe. The end of that terrible confrontation is greatly to be welcomed, but it has left problems in its wake. Other tensions, sometimes long submerged, have been able to surface now that the super-power confrontation has been dissolved.
I remember calling that new and complex picture a "bonfire of the certainties". The world is now a much more complex and confusing place. However, some people continue to say, "Who is the enemy now that the Warsaw pact has gone?" I have a clear answer for them: the enemy is the instability that can threaten the peace and prosperity that we now enjoy. Only last week, we saw an influx of migrants, of refugees to this country from Slovakia, which created a great stir in Britain. Just imagine the population migrations that could result if the economies of central and eastern Europe failed in their brave reform programmes.
Ethnic disputes, such as that in the former Yugoslavia, and territorial ambitions such as those displayed by Saddam Hussein, have caused major conflicts in the

611
1990s. Other problems exist as well. Religious tensions, the competition for scarce resources, including water, and the new security challenges posed by the drugs trade, organised crime and terrorism must all be dealt with.
The previous Government sadly failed to recognise that agenda. The armed forces inherited by this Government are doing difficult jobs extremely well in very demanding circumstances, but they were subjected to a series of savage and arbitrary cuts, which shocked the British people as they became widely known.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If those essential commitments demand extra spending, will the Government provide it? If not, how can this be called a review? Is not it just a cost-cutting exercise?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman asks whether we shall increase spending, then implies, by answering his own question, that we shall cut expenditure. There are demanding commitments and holes in capabilities, which I shall outline. We shall have to rethink priorities inside the Ministry of Defence. I do not think that the Conservative party suggests that we increase defence expenditure—it would be bizarre if it did, given that it cut £9 billion from the defence budget in the past nine years. The hon. Gentleman would be wise not to go on about expenditure cuts but to stay silent and listen to the catalogue that we were left to deal with and the problems that we must face.
Since the mid-1980s, under the Conservative Government—Mrs. Thatcher's Administration—defence expenditure in the United Kingdom has declined by 29 per cent. in real terms. It now stands at 2.7 per cent. of gross domestic product—the lowest level since 1934. That is an interesting date for Conservative Members to ruminate on for a moment.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's insider knowledge in a moment, but let me remind him what the Conservative Administration were doing, so that the House has a full picture of what we inherited.
Since 1990—the year after the Berlin wall collapsed—the strength of our armed forces has been reduced from 315,000 to 215,000. That is 100,000 out of our armed forces and a fall of some 32 per cent. The number of conventionally armed submarines has fallen from 28 to 12. The fleet of destroyers and frigates in the Royal Navy has been reduced from 48 to 35. The number of infantry battalions in the British Army has been reduced from 55 to 40, while the number of tanks is down by some 45 per cent. and the number of aircraft in service with the Royal Air Force has fallen by more than 30 per cent. That is what the Conservative Government did between 1990 and 1997. Would Conservative Members like to speculate on what they would have said if a Labour Government had done that?
Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of the reductions and the possibility that we shall continue to try to keep a small number in regular service, will the Secretary of State give a commitment that that which has been at the heart of our nation—the volunteer aspect—
612
will be maintained in the future and not whittled down further? In particular, will he give a commitment to maintain defence medical services as a front-line rather than rear-line operation?
Mr. Robertson: A strategic defence review that came up with all the answers in advance and protected every area that people felt to be precious would not be a strategic defence review. Indeed, a mistake made by at least one Conservative Administration was to call a pre-established list of cuts in one service a defence review. All the options will be 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. I shall speak briefly about the defence medical services later, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will deal with the matter at greater length tomorrow on the second day of the debate.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will get his moment of glory when I choose.
I appreciate that reductions in the front line were justified by the new strategic circumstances, but arbitrary cuts elsewhere have left serious holes in the capabilities of our armed forces, and we must put them right. Those mistakes must be rectified. We are determined to refashion Britain's defences to produce the flexible, modern, high-capability, mobile forces that we shall need to meet the new challenges. I shall say a little more about our thinking on those issues in a moment.
We are determined to create modern, strong defences, but make no mistake about it, that commitment is not a blank cheque for the Ministry of Defence. Obtaining greater efficiency from defence spending is a central part of the strategic defence review. I am committed to ensuring that every pound spent by the Ministry of Defence is necessary for our country's defence and security, so I have instructed my staff to look at all aspects of the way in which we support and equip the front line, to make sure that defence capability is delivered as cost-effectively as possible.
In that connection, perhaps I should say a word about the so-called fine that was levied on the Ministry of Defence recently. Contrary to the impression given by some newspapers, the deduction of £168 million from this year's budget occurred because of an overspend in the previous financial year, which ended a month before we came to office. According to long-established practice, such overspends are clawed back from the following year's budget, as the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), a former Treasury Minister, will know only too well. As in so many other cases, that fine is a legacy of the previous Government, which we shall have to bear. It is one more reason why I must push to produce ever greater efficiency at the MOD.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. So the £168 million fine has been taken on the chin by his Department. Can he tell us where the money will be found from within this year's Ministry of Defence spending budget?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Ministers in the previous Government who

613
were responsible for the overspend. It had nothing to do with me or other Ministers now on the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman will discover that a large part of the reason for the overspend was that bills that should have been paid in the current financial year were paid in the previous financial year. Clearly, if they were paid in advance, they will not be paid this year. We shall keep to the spending plans that were already laid down for 1997 and for 1998 and 1999, but spending will have to be reduced to accommodate the fine.
That is one of the legacies that we inherited. We must also live with the so-called efficiency savings of 3 per cent. that we inherited from the previous Government. That is one of the results of what they put in place. I have explained what that was and the effect that it will have.
Mr. Crispin Blunt rose—
Mr. Robertson: No, the matter has been effectively dealt with.
We shall put pressure on resources and on efficiency not just because that is right, but because we need to free resources inside the Ministry to tackle the legacy of problems left to us by the previous Government. I shall not detain the House with an exhaustive list of problems, but let me highlight a few examples.
First, there has been a series of spares shortfalls with our Challenger 1 tanks and Tornado F3 aircraft. Secondly, we cannot transport some of our major battle-winning equipment by air. Thirdly, our defence medical services, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) observed, have serious personnel and equipment shortfalls and reduced morale as a consequence.
The problems that we have inherited are not restricted to equipment. The armed forces are chronically short of personnel. As well as a shortage of well over 4,000 regular soldiers, there are widespread shortages of specialists such as logistics experts and signals personnel. As a result, many of our troops have to spend much longer periods in high-stress postings such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia than is officially recommended.
For example, more than 1,000 soldiers were deployed to Bosnia last year within six months of completing a previous operational tour. Some of them had only three weeks in the United Kingdom between serving in the Falklands and moving on to service in Bosnia. Small wonder, then, that we have difficulty in recruiting and especially in retaining personnel. It is a remarkable tribute to those people and their families that they take the strain of those problems with so little complaint.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I share the Secretary of State's admiration for the way in which the families and the service men coped with those difficulties. Does he accept, however, that for many young people joining the armed forces, the prospect of operations, the training for real operations and going on operations make it such an attractive career? That unique aspect of a career in the armed forces must be balanced with the requirement, as people get older, to allow them to spend more time with their families. I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman as he wrestles with the problem.
Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution. He had long experience in the MOD. The
614
shortfall of troops is a deep and serious problem with which he tried to deal, even if unsuccessfully. Although many of the people in our armed forces enjoy the operations in which they take part and the challenge that they face, the pressure on their family lives—a critically important part of morale and their effectiveness—increases all the time. When I was in Split in Croatia last Monday, I listened with dismay to some of the personal problems that had been created by overstretch, which must be dealt with not simply on the ground of military effectiveness, but on the ground of pure humanity.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend and his Minister of State know very well the problems of those in Bosnia who are based at Fallingbostel or elsewhere in the Rhine Army with regard to local allowances. Is there any way in which the cut in local allowances can be reconsidered?
Mr. Robertson: We have examined the matter and I listened carefully to the complaints that were made. The local allowances paid in Germany are designed specifically to compensate for the very high cost of living in that country. Personnel who move to other theatres do not experience such a high cost of living. That is why the allowances are adapted to take account of the circumstances.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: On the issue of morale and discipline, may I say with what I hope is characteristic diffidence that I sincerely hope that Major Eric Joyce will not face a court martial on the charge of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline? As someone who served in the ranks of the British Army, if only for two years, may I tell my right hon. Friend that I have great sympathy for some of the observations that Major Joyce has made about the class-ridden nature of the British Army and the racial and sexual discrimination that many young soldiers have experienced in recent days?
Mr. Robertson: I recall that my hon. Friend served in the military police, so he will know a little about discipline in the armed forces. He, more than most, will know that Queen's regulations clearly state that serving members of the armed forces should not comment publicly on issues of public sensitivity or take an active part in party political issues. Therefore, Major Joyce's activities were directly a matter for the Army and not for Ministers. Whatever Major Joyce may have said, the issue is the conduct of individuals in the armed forces. It is for Ministers to be involved in politics when there is a change of Government. I have chosen my words with great caution because that is a matter for the Army, and not for Ministers.
I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). If he can remember his point, I shall do so now.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Mr. Secretary of State, that is very generous of you. In the spirit of consensus, I return you to the crucial central issue of the strategic defence review—the budget—to which you have referred. I ask—through the Chair—whether you accept the results of a survey published in The Observer just after the general election. In a survey of Labour Back-Bench Members,

615
some 80 per cent. urged that there be major reductions in defence expenditure and that those funds be transferred to other areas of priority upon which Labour fought the election. How does the Secretary of State square his statement—that there will be no cuts in defence expenditure—with the opinion of most of his hon. Friends, while continuing to claim that there are many things wrong with the Ministry of Defence? I do not agree with those Labour Members, but no doubt their views are strongly held.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am all for cordiality of exchanges in the House, but they must be accompanied by a degree of formality in addressing remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Robertson: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has greater expertise on defence expenditure than on addressing the rules of the House. However, I make no pedantry about that.
Labour was elected, in no small part, on our pledge to maintain the strong convention of defence of this country, and to conduct a strategic defence review that would create a balance between what the country wants, needs and is able to do and how best to achieve that. We are embarking upon such a review. We know—as does the hon. Gentleman—about the legacy of economic failure that we inherited from the previous Government and how difficult circumstances are. That is why there are so few Conservative Members of Parliament.
I am determined to get full value from the existing defence budget. I am determined to ensure that our troops are equipped in the best manner possible and to increase service morale. In that way, we shall ensure that they are able to do what the country asks of them. That is precisely why we are establishing the Government's foreign policy priorities before trying to establish the country's needs.
My criticisms regarding the capability holes that we inherited from the previous Government were not intended to score party political points. Many of those criticisms were expressed by the previous Select Committee on Defence, which had an in-built Conservative majority. Its reports were laid on the Table of the House for hon. Members to read. I point them up in order to illustrate the size of the task facing us in creating armed forces that are capable of meeting the challenges of the next century.
To those who claim that the review is not needed and that the armed forces have had to withstand enough change, I say that they should look at the problems and understand the different challenges that the forces will have to meet. They must then agree that we must act to ensure that our defences are strong. We should not have change for change's sake, but we need change if we are not to become a paper tiger. If we are to modernise our armed forces properly, we must also bring our personnel policies up to date.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Robertson: I have given way enough today. Many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, and I must make more progress before I indulge in further generosity to Conservative Members.
616
The armed forces must represent the society that they defend if they are not to become isolated from it. That is why I am announcing today the quantum change in the number of posts open to women in the British Army. I have decided that, with the present exception of the infantry, the Household Cavalry and the Royal Armoured Corps, all jobs in the Regular Army should now be open to women. That will increase the percentage of Regular Army posts currently open to women from 47 per cent. to 70 per cent.
Women already make a substantial contribution in many areas of the Army and, from 1 April next year, they will also be able to serve in all posts in the Royal Artillery, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. This decision follows a comprehensive review of policy on the employment of women in the Army, and I have ordered an investigation as to whether opportunities for women across the armed forces can be expanded still further. The results of that work will depend, in part, upon the introduction of appropriate gender-free physical selection tests and a full investigation of any potential impact on combat effectiveness that the introduction of women to forward units could cause.
That is another step in fulfilling our promise to modernise the armed forces. We have already launched initiatives to improve access for members of ethnic minorities. Our initiative won plaudits last week from Britain's leading black newspaper, The Voice. Commenting on the Army's launch earlier this month of its revised equal opportunities strategy, the newspaper said:
"If last week's announcement is anything to go by, the Ministry of Defence is certainly going the right way about putting its house in order".
I am personally committed to ensuring that access to the armed forces, and promotion thereafter, is based firmly on merit rather than determined in any way by social class.
We have also made it clear that the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces will be the subject of a free vote during this Parliament. The Government will advance proposals on that subject, having taken into account, among other things, the views of the armed forces and the European courts on the matter.
I shall also say something about another pledge that we intend to redeem. In meeting the needs of our armed forces, the Ministry of Defence and the British defence industry have invested heavily in advanced technologies. We intend to make the best use of the skills and technologies that have been acquired, by spreading the technological processes and skills developed for defence into new civil markets through a defence diversification agency. Such links will strengthen the country's industrial base and contribute to improving Britain's economic performance. We are, therefore, examining how we can build upon the activities of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, in encouraging the wider exploitation of defence technology.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Robertson: I shall give the former special advisers one last chance perhaps to parade their knowledge in this area.
Mr. Blunt: I am afraid that I must return the right hon. Gentleman to his earlier comments when I tried to

617
intervene. He used the term paper tiger. I recall that the same term was used four years ago by his predecessor, who issued a warning to the Treasury about what was happening to Britain's armed forces as a result of defence expenditure levels at that stage. That resulted in a welcome commitment to the front-line strength of the armed forces at that time and in the exercise "Front Line First", which reinvested £250 million in the front-line strength of the armed forces. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his use today of the term paper tiger means that he and his Ministers will stand firm, on behalf of our armed forces, in the face of Treasury pressure?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman, who was a special adviser to a Conservative Secretary of State before the election, has the brass neck to lecture me about fighting the Treasury when the Conservative Government took defence expenditure as a proportion of GDP from 5.2 per cent. in 1985 to 2.7 per cent this year. The hon. Gentleman shows quite remarkable and blatant cheek. He should read the reports of the Select Committee, which had a Conservative majority in the previous Parliament, on the capability not only in the front line, but in the essential back-up for our armed forces. This new Labour Government intend to ensure that our armed forces have the relevant back-up that they require—which is more than the hon. Gentleman's Government did.
Mr. Blunt rose—
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman had his second chance in the election.
Work is now in hand on developing our proposals on diversification. We hope to publish a Green Paper next month and I hope that all those with interests in the subject will contribute to the consultation exercise, so that we can achieve a measure of consensus on the way ahead before final decisions are taken.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the splendid way in which he is dealing with defence provision for our country. In his review, will he comment on the future of the Territorial Army? Is that subject included in the review?
Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. Of course, the matter that he raises will be centrally addressed in the strategic defence review. The role of the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces is of enormous interest. I cannot predict the outcome of the review, but when I have met reserve forces serving in many parts of the world—including in Bosnia last week—I have underlined the value that they add to our armed forces.
The Government have also promised action to tackle the scourge of anti-personnel land mines. We have kept our promise—and in the early days of this Government—to ban the export, import, transfer or manufacture of those land mines. In the weeks since, we have successfully pushed for the Ottawa treaty, which will be signed in December. That will be a big step towards ridding the world of those dreadful weapons.
618
Last week, in Bosnia, I announced a five-point plan to increase the contribution that the Army makes to humanitarian de-mining. That includes the creation of a mine information and training centre at Minley in Surrey and the establishment of a new military post within my Department to lead a Ministry of Defence co-ordination group on humanitarian de-mining.
My five-point plan will make a good start and I am confident that, together with the increase in resources for mine clearance announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, it will ensure that the Government play an honourable part in tackling this modern and dreadful scourge. Those redeemed pledges build on the record of success that we have achieved since we came to power a mere six months ago.
On the international stage, we have provided the strong leadership that Britain deserves. At the Madrid summit, we made sensible and successful progress on the enlargement of NATO. At the Amsterdam summit, we retained our national veto on defence while securing the explicit recognition, written into the treaty for the first time, that NATO is the foundation of our and our allies' common defence. In July, in the Bosnian town of Prijedor, British troops serving with the stabilisation force acted decisively to bring people indicted for war crimes to justice. It is all part of our plan: we promised strong defence and we keep our promises.
We said that we would retain Trident. We have kept that promise. The recent Trident missile bodies order reinforces our commitment to credible but minimum deterrence. At the same time, we are injecting a new sense of urgency into international disarmament negotiations. That will be followed up by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I shall be travelling to Moscow next Monday to talk to my counterpart, General Sergeyev, and we are determined to build better relations with Russia. As part of our manifesto commitment, the defence review is also looking at all aspects of our nuclear posture, including the number of warheads carried by the Trident submarines, to ensure that our deterrent is kept to the minimum yet credible level.
Beyond our manifesto commitments, we have provided additional cash for the Government's medical assessment programme for Gulf war veterans, and I am proud to say that we have more than doubled the amount that the previous Government planned to spend on research into ill health among Gulf war veterans. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will deal with that matter in greater detail tomorrow.
The biggest and most central promise that we made in our manifesto was to hold a strategic defence review. I am now even more convinced that we were right to make that commitment. It has become increasingly clear to me that the criticisms we made in opposition were not only telling, but, if anything, understated. It was only through the overworked dedication of our forces, which had to get used to having to make do and mend, that we averted serious problems in the Gulf war and Bosnia. It is now our task to put that right.
Thankfully, we are no longer likely to face the same sort of all-out war in Europe which consumed our resources in the half-century up to the collapse of the Berlin wall. Yet paradoxically, now that the huge threat has gone, the newly emerging tensions may mean that our

619
forces will be more likely to have to fight in defence of British interests in a wide variety of places. It is no coincidence that Britain has been involved in two major conflicts in the 1990s—in Bosnia and in the Gulf.
Of course, Britain's interests do not extend equally everywhere. Our assessment is that we are likely to be most directly involved in such problems in Europe, the Gulf or the Mediterranean, where our economic and security interests are most closely engaged. It is those interests and obligations that should primarily determine the size and shape of our armed forces. However, Britain also has wider security interests that could lead to us contributing to coalition operations and humanitarian missions elsewhere.
To achieve all of that change, we shall have to give our armed forces the ships and aircraft that they will need to transport their equipment to areas of tension. They will need the spares, ammunition and back-up support to work when they arrive and they will need reliable equipment if they are to fight. We shall also have to fix the sorry catalogue of problems left for us by the Conservative Government.
We shall reach out to the countries of central and eastern Europe, to work to extend to the newly emerging democracies the security that we have so long enjoyed in the west. I believe that defence has a substantial role to play here too, by positively engaging the militaries of Russia and the Ukraine, to show them how professional armed forces can operate happily under effective civilian control. In bilateral work and through NATO and the United Nations, we can ease the fears of other countries, to prevent them slipping into hostility once more.
Closer work with our former adversaries will make us friends and achieve a disarmament of the mind which is every bit as valuable as an international treaty. We must use the tools of preventive diplomacy and co-operation over development to help to eliminate problems before they occur. We are now looking for new ways to engage with our former adversaries, many of which will involve a positive role for our armed forces. This work I call defence diplomacy and I intend to make it a major theme coming out of the defence review.
We clearly have a substantial task ahead, especially as, in the current climate, we cannot expect any increased funding in real terms for the armed forces, given the other priorities that the Government must meet. Accordingly, we shall have to improve efficiency, release surplus assets and make hard choices about priorities if we are to release funds for the necessary modernisation of our forces. That is one of the reasons why we cancelled the previous Government's plans to spend £60 million on a replacement for Britannia.
That will be the task of the next stage of the review, and doubtless there will be screams from some vested interests as all the options are explored. But be in no doubt, I am determined to ensure that within the very limited resources budgeted for by the previous Government, whose plans we inherited, nothing is wasted within the Ministry of Defence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Robertson: Hon. Members would be very unpopular with their colleagues were they to prolong my speech. I intend to move swiftly towards a conclusion.
620
I make the point that we have these difficulties, and we have to live within them. They were created by the previous Government, and we shall do our best with what we have. It is my duty to eliminate duplication and to cut waste, to look carefully at all the functions of the Ministry of Defence and its agencies to determine whether they are strictly necessary, and to make the tough choices that my predecessors shirked. I owe it to the armed forces, to the Government and, indeed, to the British people, to free up those resources, to ensure that I deliver our manifesto pledge of strong defences that are genuinely capable of fighting in the modern world. I promise the British people and the House that I for one will not duck that challenge.
5.50 pm
Sir George Young: Let me begin by agreeing with the Secretary of State: our armed forces have had a good summer. The Army has helped to keep the peace in Bosnia, arresting suspected war criminals. The RAF has been enforcing the air exclusion zone over northern Iraq, and our Navy has brought aid to the stricken island of Montserrat—but three varied examples of the tasks that we expect of our armed forces today. They remain a respected, disciplined, professional force. They discharge their duties, defend our country and keep the peace with courage, humanity and efficiency. We owe them an enormous debt. The video that was shown at the Commonwealth conference, which was about Britain, not the Commonwealth, might have found a few minutes to reflect on the role of our armed forces.
While the armed forces have had a good summer, their Secretary of State has not. He lost his battle to replace Britannia, meekly watching while other Ministers left their footprints all over his flower beds; he has seen his budget targeted for a fine of £168 million; his strategic defence review has been hijacked by the Treasury, which is now firmly ensconced in the pilot seat. As a result, his strategy of building a consensus on defence is already in disarray. Morale in his Department is falling, which in turn will have an impact on the all-important question of recruitment.
Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to the role of women in the armed forces. I give a cautious welcome to his initiative to recruit more women into the armed forces. Nothing should be done that prejudices the operational efficiency of the armed forces. It remains to be seen exactly how big will be the impact on recruitment of the initiative announced this afternoon.
Mr. Soames: I warmly endorse what my right hon. Friend has said but ask him to seek confirmation from the Secretary of State that the best people to judge the operational effectiveness of additional women joining the armed forces are the armed forces themselves. Decisions should not be made by politicians in some form of modern social engineering.
Sir George Young: I endorse that and hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces, who will be winding up tonight, will do the same.
In the time available, I want to focus mainly on the strategic defence review, NATO enlargement and Bosnia. I know that my hon. Friends will deal with some of the key issues that I omit. I shall begin with the strategic defence review. That was dreamed up by Labour

621
Members not so much to secure a policy after the election, but to avoid having one before it. When it was set up, we were told that it would be foreign policy led, to establish Britain's security needs and the tasks for the armed forces for the 21st century.
The press notice announcing the review hardly mentioned resources at all. It has been the Secretary of State's blind spot throughout the summer. His speech to RUSI, only last month, gave no hint that there would be any resource constraints on this policy-driven exercise. Money was not mentioned. Indeed, at the Ministry of Defence seminar in July, which I attended, a number of people, including myself, questioned the role of the Treasury, but all reference by contributors to resources has been airbrushed out of the minutes. Yet before the review is half way through, his Department has had to bear the brunt of the Government's failure to meet their manifesto commitment on health within the cash limits to which they had committed themselves.
We were told that the Secretary of State has been fined because his Department overspent. Will the national health service be fined this year if it overspends? Did any other Government Department overspend last year and was not fined? What was the precise reason for the fine? Did the Secretary of State resist it, or did he simply roll over and accept it? Or did he resist it and was simply defeated in a battle with the Treasury? He owes it to the House to respond to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and tell the House where that £168 million reduction will fall. Was the Secretary of State aware of the cut in his budget before his speech to RUSI, in which he said that the forces were overstretched?
The key point is that the Secretary of State's strategic expense review is no longer about his Department changing defence priorities; it is about the Treasury changing spending priorities. The raid on his budget last month destroyed the integrity and the credibility of an objective foreign policy-led strategic defence review. There is worse to come. I invite him to look at the difficult options that his colleagues around the Cabinet table are having to consider: tuition fees for students, charges for GP visits, abolishing the income support lone parent premium, cutting tax incentives for small savers, cutting back passport control, and whatever else emerges from the reviews on which the Government have embarked. If he thinks that a Labour Cabinet will grapple with those issues, with all the political fall-out, and leave him with the defence budget set by an outgoing Conservative Government, he is guilty of extreme naivety.
The Secretary of State continues to paint himself into a corner by writing articles and making speeches saying that the forces are severely overstretched. In an article in The Independent in July, which will have enraged the Treasury, he boldly asserted:
"Slashing our defence spending … would in my view completely remove our capacity to mount operations such as those in Bosnia."
Slashing defence expenditure is exactly what many of his colleagues want. Indeed, some of them are on the record making the case, yesterday on television. Reductions in defence expenditure are exactly what the Treasury now proposes to his Department.
The Secretary of State is right, but his assertion sits uncomfortably with all the press reports that we have seen—for example, that the Government are now
622
considering reducing the size of, even abolishing, the Territorial Army. Thousands of soldiers from the TA have served in Bosnia, where they provide an invaluable contribution in front-line operations and in support. Cutting back on operations such as the TA would have nothing to do with a strategic review and everything to do with a short-sighted, short-term effort to reduce costs.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the Secretary of State first paid great tribute to the flexibility of the armed forces but then said that they had to be modernised? Everything was about modernisation. Indeed, in his last few pages, he talked about modernisation. Does my right hon. Friend not think that this modernisation is just a way of saying, "That's how I'm going to cover up the cuts that are coming"?
Sir George Young: On that specific point, I was impressed with what the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee said—that modernisation or restructuring will cost resources. It is not the case that modernisation is a way of saving money. If one is to modernise and restructure, it will cost. I remind the House that, yesterday, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee said that where we are at the moment is the base line, and
"any further cuts will endanger the defence of the realm".
The Secretary of State is a decent man. His reputation can absorb the hit of £168 million but if, as I suspect, the outcome of the review is a substantial reduction in his budget, the decency to which I have referred must lead him to consider his position in the Government. At least he will have been preceded by his Minister of State, now in another place, who is on the record as having said in last year's debate:
"I also happen to think that this country does not spend enough on defence."—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 506.]
Mr. George Robertson: May I just ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question? I believe that he is a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury—
Sir George Young: No.
Mr. Robertson: Well, I am sure that he was a Treasury Minister for one ignominious part of his career. Is he in favour of increasing the defence budget now?
Sir George Young: The Conservative Government left a three-year profile for defence expenditure. That was our statement on defence priorities. I do not believe that the Labour Government will be able to adhere to that profile. I think that the Secretary of State will take a hit on his budget next year. I think that he is painting himself into a corner, and will make life very difficult for himself and his colleagues if, in six months' time, he comes back to the House and announces a substantial reduction in defence expenditure.
There are two other flaws in the way in which the review is being conducted. The Secretary of State is refusing to publish the foreign policy base line before he moves on to the next stage of the review. What is the point of the consultation process making the review—in the Secretary of State's words—
"as open to outside views and ideas as possible"

623
if the key link in the logical chain is withheld? If we do not know what the foreign policy base line is, how can we comment sensibly—as we are invited to next month—on the defence requirements to deliver that foreign policy?
Will the Secretary of State also concede that the original timetable of six months is now in tatters, as the Treasury will not sign off the strategic defence review until it has finished with other Departments, and that the inevitable blight that the review brings with it will cast a longer shadow than he thought—not least over the procurement budget, with all the job consequences for the United Kingdom?
The second flaw is mentioned again in today's edition of The Guardian. Excluding defence equipment from the review poses a risk that equipment will dictate defence policy, rather than the choice of equipment being dictated by policy. The Secretary of State has not dealt with that point at any time during the criticism of the strategic defence review.
The right hon. Gentleman's strategy of trying to neutralise defence as a political issue is also fraying. It was always a bold strategy. Days before Parliament was dissolved on 11 March, his predecessor said in a speech to the Defence Forum:
"The policy issues I have broadly outlined today differ fundamentally from those of the Government."
Indeed, if the Secretary of State looks at his party's manifesto, he will see that he described our policy as
"intellectually inert, incoherent and incompetent."
We were therefore slightly surprised to be told after the election that there had been
"a remarkable convergence among the parties in recent years on the big defence issues."
Convergence is what happens when two parties move closer together. That is not what has happened on defence. We stuck to our principles, and Labour abandoned its principles. The Secretary of State rather delicately admitted that in his speech to RUSI, when he said:
"events in the 1980s showed that, without a clear and unambiguous commitment to strong defences as an essential part of Britain's foreign policy, the British people would not trust us with Government".
The Labour party's principles made it unelectable, so it decided to change them.
The world has changed since the Labour party thought that the best way in which to see off the Soviet threat was to abandon the nuclear deterrent. The end of the cold war—as the Secretary of State said—has replaced the old unpredictability of defence policy with much more complex problems. Britain's role in the world, and the demands on our armed forces, are changing. We have had to redefine our basic assumptions about security. There is no longer an enemy; there are only enemies—terrorism, dictatorships and regional instability, threatening wider destabilisation. There are, however, consistent themes in response. Those themes are the need to maintain a first-rate, well-equipped, flexible fighting force, the need to co-operate with our allies and the need to assess our security and foreign policy commitments in a global context.
NATO has provided the framework to meet those requirements since the second world war. It has been the bedrock on which peace and security in Europe have been built. We owe a continuing debt to our allies in the United
624
States for playing the role of guarantor of peace in Europe for the past 50 years. If it is the European Union that has dominated the headlines in recent years and, indeed, today, it is the stability and security that NATO provided that have made the European Union possible.
The balance of power in Europe has now changed, and there is an opportunity to bring a number of the former Communist countries into the NATO alliance. Conservative Members whole-heartedly welcome both the continuation of the initiative taken under the last Government to begin negotiations with Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to enable them to join the alliance and the commitment to an open-door policy on further enlargement. It is a measure of how much we take peace and security for granted that the enlargement of NATO merits such small mention in the news bulletins, whereas, at any other time in our history, discussion about alliances such as these would have dominated the political debate.
Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Conservative Members are particularly keen for former Warsaw pact countries such as the Baltic states to be able to preserve their security in future? Will he also confirm that we intend to keep up the pressure on the Government to ensure that they are very much aware of the special position of the Baltic states?
Sir George Young: It is very important for the countries that were not recently invited to join NATO to know that there is an open-door policy, allowing the prospect of their joining later. My hon. Friend has made a good point. The significance of NATO has always been wider than its military purpose. It is about shared values, the spread of democratic institutions under civilian control and respect for human rights. While the applicant countries want membership because it brings them under a collective umbrella, providing stability and security that they have not had for centuries, the membership conditions in turn reinforce peace and stability in Europe as democracies do not declare war on each other.
There will, however, be costs as a result of NATO enlargement. On 9 July, in his statement on NATO enlargement, the Prime Minister told the House that there was no reason why Britain's contribution to NATO budgets—currently some £155 million—should rise significantly in real terms. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply will tell us whether that is indeed the latest assessment of the cost to the United Kingdom of NATO enlargement.
We need to be prepared to bear our share of the costs of enlargement. Although enlargement is being welcomed within the alliance, there are those in the United States in particular who will question whether there is a rationale for the US to extend its defence commitments to the east in the post-cold war era. Any failure on the part of NATO's European partners to bear their share of the costs of enlargement would play into their hands and put at risk ratification of the process, which is by no means a foregone conclusion.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Many politicians, left, right and centre, repeat parrot fashion that there are enormous costs relating to the enlargement of NATO, and then stop. I invite the shadow Secretary of State to list those additional costs. I think that they are either

625
exaggerated or wholly bogus. I should like him to tell us what he thinks the additional costs are, because I do not think that they are of the significance that he asserts.
Sir George Young: There is a collective agreement on security. If we incur new commitments to defend countries that we do not have to defend now, that may impose additional costs on us. The question is: what is the latest assessment of the additional costs to the United Kingdom? The hon. Gentleman says that there are no costs. He may have seen the estimates made by the Clinton Administration, which refer to several billion pounds of extra costs for existing members as a direct result of enlargement. The Library has produced a very interesting paper on the subject, to which the hon. Gentleman might like to address himself.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir George Young: For the last time; then I must make progress.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend, and Her Majesty's Government, bear it in mind that, whereas it may be incumbent on NATO—understandably—to bear infrastructural costs to ensure the enlargement of the alliance, the position relating to the European Union is in dramatic contradistinction? Its member countries, notably the United Kingdom, pay more and more, although it has not yet enlarged.
Sir George Young: That is an ingenious debating point, to which I do not propose to respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will have more to say later about procurement, but I think it appropriate, before I leave the issue of NATO enlargement, for me to mention the opportunity that exists for British defence manufacturers among the countries that are seeking to join the alliance. The British defence industry has continued to make great strides in recent years in improving efficiency and competitiveness. It is well placed to take advantage of the new market opportunities that closer defence co-operation with countries in central and eastern Europe will present.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir George Young: I must make progress, because many hon. Members want to make a contribution.
At some point, Europe will need to address the structure of its defence industries if it is to respond to the rationalisation of capacity that has taken place on the other side of the Atlantic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and I have just returned from a visit to Bosnia, as has the Secretary of State. We saw at first hand the work of the British forces serving in SFOR. They are carrying out with the utmost dedication and professionalism and in the most difficult circumstances the task of helping to return Bosnia to the status of a functioning peacetime democracy.
626
Some progress has been made in the two years since the signing of the Dayton agreement. The war is, for the moment, over. However, there is still a great deal to do: a huge number of refugees have yet to return to their homes; the new political institutions envisaged by the Dayton accord remain paralysed; there is a continuing political crisis in the Republika Srpska; there are territorial tensions in Brcko and in other areas; and, despite the shooting and arrest of two suspected war criminals in Prijedor in July, there has been insufficient progress in other sectors on the arrest of other indicted war criminals, notably Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.
Against that background, it is clear that the original deadline for the withdrawal of foreign troops when the SFOR mandate expires in June 1998 is now unrealistic. Unless British troops and those of our allies remain in Bosnia until the transition to peace is completed, all the work that they have done will be at risk and the region will return to bloodshed.
The road to lasting peace is long and difficult. The continued participation of the United States is absolutely essential, both for the strength that our allies can bring in ensuring that the local armies remain in their barracks, and for the signal that United States involvement sends to those watching developments in Bosnia from the sidelines. Our troop commitment must be sufficient to guarantee the continued involvement of US troops.
In many ways, what is happening in Bosnia is a good example of the type of operation in which British forces will increasingly be involved. They have gained invaluable experience in Northern Ireland, where they have won the trust of local communities while remaining resolute and impartial in preserving peace and protecting the civilian population. No other country has the ability to operate in twin mode as well as we do. We must also preserve the capability to engage in a high-intensity conflict should the need arise, or should a peacekeeping operation escalate into a more violent struggle.
The Opposition welcome the willingness of the new Government to build on the work begun by the previous Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The current cessation of violence has enabled a reduction to be made in the number of British troops on active service, which alleviates the drain on the Army's resources that the Province represents and allows more time for rest and training. We would welcome further reductions in the number of troops should circumstances allow, but caution that the security of the civilian population must not be compromised for financial considerations.
It is clear that the terrorist threat remains. On my recent visit, it was made clear to me that the guns and explosives are still in the hands of those who may resort to them should the peace process no longer suit their purposes. We must remain ready to meet that threat with force should the necessity to do so arise.
The Secretary of State mentioned land mines. No one should underestimate the contribution made by the Princess of Wales to the efforts to rid the world of the scourge of land mines. She raised the profile of the campaign and gave it added momentum, so that it made a significant breakthrough in the public consciousness. The campaign has lost a great champion of its cause. The best tribute is to ensure that her work was not in vain.

627
A meaningful ban on land mines will come only when the major exporters of such weapons have also agreed to a ban. We welcome the signing of the Oslo agreement, but it is severely weakened because it does not include the major manufacturers of land mines: China, Russia and Pakistan. The land mines debate has rightly focused on negotiations for a future ban, but the problem requires a dual approach: working towards a ban and removing existing mines. Even if all countries signed up to a ban—they are not about to—the number of lives and limbs saved in the near future is likely to be small, relative to the number saved by a more aggressive clearance policy. I welcome the Government's announcement last week of an initiative to support the efforts of mine clearance agencies. We should accept that land mines have had a military purpose, so work to encourage the development of alternatives that can achieve that purpose without the same devastation is essential.
I cannot do justice to the many other defence issues, such as the disarmament talks, recruitment and personnel issues, training and defence co-operation within the European Union, without trespassing too much on the time of the House. I know that my hon. Friends will deal with those matters in their contributions. However, I want to end with a word about the royal yacht Britannia.
The previous Government had a clear policy. We announced it, we defended it before the House and, had we won the election, we would have done what we promised—but that is history. The new Government have decided not to replace the royal yacht. They prefer to spend £50 million on a Welsh Assembly, which will not generate any exports. However, I want to dwell not on their decision but on the disgraceful way in which that important national issue was handled, because of the Government's obsession with presentation, which got them into such trouble earlier, and the shameless way in which they are prepared to manipulate issues such as the royal yacht for party political ends.
We know that the Government exercise strong central control of the presentation of policy to the media, because the Minister without Portfolio told us so in an article in The Guardian on 18 September. He said:
"each departmental spoke comes together in a strong central hub"
and
"Effective co-ordination and presentation has been a key factor"
in the running of the Government's media operations. In a sentence that he may regret, given what subsequently happened, he said:
"we have no intention of repeating the shambolic way in which the last government was run."
That was an unhappy thing to say against the background of the statement made earlier.
On Sunday 3 August, a series of stories appeared in national newspapers saying that the Government had decided in principle to extend the life of Britannia through a deal for a refit with private sector companies. "Queen offered 'pay as you sail' yacht" was the headline in The Observer; "Britannia timeshare offer to Queen" in The Sunday Times; "Royal yacht may be saved" in the Independent on Sunday; and "Labour offers the Queen a reprieve for Britannia" in The Sunday Telegraph.
I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask why the Ministry of Defence had made no official press statement, why no Defence or Treasury Minister had appeared on television to
628
substantiate or expand the story, and why The Sunday Times had reported that the Ministry of Defence said that it knew nothing of the decision until the story had been confirmed to the paper by the Treasury.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Sheer speculation.
Sir George Young: Does the Minister invite the House to believe that four or five Sunday newspapers decided, wholly independently, that the future of Britannia was a front-page story? It is more likely that there was a briefing. I want to know what briefing by Government officials or Ministers took place before that Sunday.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir George Young: No, I must make progress.
If the briefing was not given by the Ministry of Defence and if it knew that it was inaccurate, who gave the briefing and why? Was it a smokescreen to obscure something that was happening at the same time? The ultimate humiliation for the Secretary of State was when not he but the Chancellor confirmed, in an off-the-cuff remark in a television interview with Sir David Frost, that the Government were not going to replace the royal yacht.
I mention that incident with Britannia because it shows the Government at their worst. Their spinning has gone beyond the stage of deceiving the batsman; it is deceiving the fielders. The cynical manipulation of news and non-news, leading to the resignation of senior members of the Government Information Service, is one of the most sinister developments since 1 May. The Secretary of State may have been an innocent party in the Britannia episode, but that makes the cynicism of those responsible even worse.
On the Secretary of State's performance as a whole, the jury is out. The clash between his rhetoric and the agenda of his Treasury colleagues will be resolved next year. The results of the strategic defence review will be known, so we shall be able to judge whether it was the objective exercise that he told us it would be. He will have our support in resisting those in his party who see his budget as a soft touch. However, if, next year, he discovers a new and burning ambition to be the first Scottish Prime Minister, we shall know that he has lost his battle and that, contrary to what we were told in the election, the defence of our country is not safe with Labour.
6.19 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in this annual debate. I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that I do not insult both of them when I say that the speech that each delivered could as easily have been delivered by the other. In truth, the differences between the two sides of the House on defence issues are probably much smaller than they have been at any time over the past 20 years.
The debate takes place in a vacuum because, unlike such debates in the recent past, there is no White Paper upon which we can concentrate. In addition, the Secretary of State has made no clear statement on the foreign policy objectives that are to be served by the United Kingdom's

629
defence capability. He has been consistent in that because, of course, just before the summer recess he answered a parliamentary question to the effect that he would not make such a statement. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Defence he also declined to give a clear statement of foreign policy objectives.
It was with some enthusiasm, even anticipation, that I read the speech that the Secretary of State delivered to the Royal United Services Institute on 18 September. As an analysis of what needs to be done and how to do it, the speech can hardly be faulted, but as an indication of Government thinking it gave very little assistance. I was driven to the conclusion that it could just as easily have been delivered by Sir Malcolm Rifkind or even Mr. Michael Portillo after the period of compulsory re-education that followed his first speech as Secretary of State for Defence to his party conference.
The question that will haunt the Ministry of Defence is the financial one. The Secretary of State is right to say that defence cuts are not new. As he said, the defence budget is now 2.7 per cent. of gross domestic product. That is the lowest percentage since the 1930s and since the mid-1980s there has been a 29 per cent. reduction in real terms. Throughout the period of the reduction since the mid-1980s, it could hardly have been argued that the Conservative Government had the overwhelming support of Labour or indeed of my party, the Liberal Democrats. Those reductions were driven through in the face of substantial opposition from all parts of the House.
As long as the strategic defence review is driven by Britain's long-term defence needs, it will be a valuable exercise. One could argue that when it has been completed it will be difficult for the Treasury to make drastic changes to the defence budget because the Secretary of State will have available on paper exactly how much it costs to ensure that Britain is properly protected. The Secretary of State asserts on this occasion, as he has on many others, that the review is foreign policy led and not Treasury led. That is an entirely logical position, but those of us who have an interest in these matters cannot escape the conclusion that the ghosts at this feast are Whelan, Balls and Brown. They sound more like a Dublin firm of pawnbrokers than those who might be responsible for the future of Britain's defence effort.
There are not three balls but three posts in this defence review. First, the Government say that they are committed to the Eurofighter—costing about £16.5 billion—with the support of the whole House. [Interruption.] I have always understood that to be the stance of the Conservative Front Bench. If it has changed its position, it will no doubt explain that to the House and the country.
Secondly, the Government are committed to a four-boat Trident force. Thirdly, it is clear to anyone who pays any regard to these matters that there is no possibility of increased defence expenditure in the United Kingdom in real terms in the foreseeable future. Those are three substantial inhibitions on the scope of any defence review.
The Secretary of State has declined to state clear foreign policy objectives. I shall be helpful to the Government by suggesting a series of foreign policy objectives that they should adopt. First, they should be much more active in seeking to develop a common foreign and security policy with our allies in Europe,
630
maintaining, of course, the individual right of member states to decide whether their national forces should take part in any particular action. Against a background of static or even declining defence budgets, far greater integration in Europe is the only logical response.
Of course we must maintain the transatlantic link, but we should work for a more mature and less dependent relationship with the United States through NATO, with the emergence of the Western European Union as the agent for the European security and defence identity and as a strengthened European pillar of NATO. We should promote and expand joint European defence co-operation and force specialisation with our neighbours. We are already engaged in joint force operations with many of them. In conjunction with our allies we should also develop a comprehensive conflict prevention strategy to co-ordinate foreign, development, defence, trade and environmental policies.
There is a growing argument that the separation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence is becoming increasingly difficult to justify. The bridge between those two Departments is the issue of security. There is great scope for considering the creation of one Ministry dealing with all Britain's external affairs.
The Government should resist the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and they should undertake to implement their responsibilities under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and encourage others to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty. We should press for a new strategic arms reduction treaty involving all the notified nuclear weapons powers. The Government should actively support and strengthen the ability of the United Nations in peace support and peacekeeping. That includes the establishment of permanent United Nations forces, enhanced intelligence gathering, improved military planning and a United Nations staff college. We should maintain our permanent membership of an enlarged United Nations Security Council and participate, as far as resources allow, in UN military actions across the spectrum of peace support and humanitarian relief.
Surely the Government recognise the need to work to control arms sales. We should end the sale of British arms or materials and dual-use technologies to regimes that abuse human rights. We should work with our European partners to create a European Union code of conduct that is clear, explicit and rigorous to prevent the transfer of weapons or weapons technology to countries that we know are likely to abuse them. We should certainly be concerned about a system of environmental protection and about free trade and human rights.
That is a set of foreign policy objectives for the Government. How much better would our debate about military matters be instructed if we heard from the Government about their foreign policy objectives. That would enable us better to assess whether the defence capabilities that they propose are apt to meet them.
Nuclear policy presents an opportunity for bold and innovative thinking. For the whole of my political life I have been committed to the independent nuclear deterrent. There is still a place for nuclear deterrence and it is still right for the United Kingdom to maintain that capability, but surely we have put aside the days when Trident drove defence policy, perhaps to the extent of eliminating all other considerations. When the utility of nuclear deterrence was obvious in the 1970s and 1980s,

631
the Labour party spurned it. Now that the utility of nuclear deterrence can be given a lower priority, we are entitled to look to the Government for a great deal of imagination and innovation, so let us start.
First, there should be no more warheads on Trident than on Polaris, which it is to replace; it is independently targetable, it has greater range and it has greater accuracy. Secondly, we should abandon the Moscow criterion—the principle that says that we cannot have an independent nuclear deterrent unless we are satisfied that it can breach all the ballistic missile defences around Moscow.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall develop the points that I want to make on nuclear matters and then, if he is still interested, I shall be happy to give way to him.
The Moscow criterion is wholly inconsistent with NATO's doctrine of minimum deterrence. The UK should make an annual declaration of the total size of its operational nuclear arsenal. No prejudice would result as a consequence of that. The United States and Russia have to do it as part of the strategic arms reduction treaty and it would help to promote transparency and assist in confidence building. The UK should promote an initiative whereby, so long as Russia and the United States continue to reduce stockpiles, Britain, France and China would bind themselves not to increase the size of their nuclear arsenals.
The UK should seek the establishment of a five-power nuclear forum before the non-proliferation treaty review conference in 2000, not only to improve safety but to strengthen security. We should also back an international nuclear weapons register as a means of increasing transparency.
All those things would operate in an effective and coherent way in continuing to reduce the extent to which nuclear weapons form part of the defence architecture of the UK and of others, and they could all be effected without any prejudice to the deterrent's independence or to its effectiveness in the purpose for which it has been conceived.
The fourth Trident submarine should not be cancelled. The financial savings from doing so would be relatively limited. Indeed, one could argue that a three-boat fleet would increase the risk of having to make an early decision on force replacement. The extension of the lifetime of the existing Trident system, so that consideration of a replacement can be postponed, is an entirely laudable objective. We should consider integrating patrol and refit schedules with those of the French and look with an open mind at the readiness of the nuclear deterrent.
I do not believe in formal declarations such as "no first use". It would be much better to emphasise NATO's doctrine of minimum deterrence and that these are weapons of last resort. In that respect, the declaration by the United States that it has no plans to deploy nuclear weapons in new NATO member countries is clearly helpful.
Mr. Corbyn: I have listened carefully to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about nuclear weapons.
632
Will he tell the House exactly who he thinks is an enemy against which a nuclear weapon should be directed and in what circumstances he would be prepared to unleash a nuclear holocaust on the globe?
Mr. Campbell: I do not have my finger on that button and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt address his question to the Secretary of State for Defence, but he misunderstands the concept of deterrence. The point about deterrence is not whether one would press the button; it is whether a potential adversary is uncertain about whether that is the case. That is not my definition. I first heard it when Lord Younger of Prestwick, as he now is, was Secretary of State for Defence. The essence of deterrence is uncertainty in the mind of a potential adversary.
During the Gulf war—the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) will remember this better than most of us—there was a certain threat that Saddam Hussein might use weapons of mass destruction. The advice given back through the appropriate diplomatic channels was that if there was any effort to use weapons of mass destruction, the response—the word was chosen with some care—would be "disproportionate". Most people understood what the shorthand meant. A feature of the Gulf war was that Saddam Hussein—as we now know from the activities of Mr. Rolf Ekeus and others on the UN Special Commission on Iraq—had substantial capacity to use weapons of mass destruction, but never did so.
People often say to those of us who support nuclear deterrence, "Can you give us an instance where it has worked?" We can never prove this to a mathematical certainty, but I am willing to accept that the threat of a disproportionate response had a great deal to do with Saddam Hussein' s reluctance to use weapons of mass destruction. Those are the sort of circumstances in which deterrence is likely to be effective. Of course, if someone presses the button he has failed because the weapon has failed to carry out its purpose—to act as a deterrent—but until there are far fewer nuclear weapons I am not disposed to give up the UK nuclear deterrent.
Eurofighter is one of the constants in the defence review. Notwithstanding articles in The Guardian, which has somehow become a popular newspaper of reference in the House, I remain convinced of Eurofighter's military, economic and technological advantages. For the moment, I want to concentrate on the military requirements.
The UK requires an agile jet fighter. The Tornado F3 Interceptor, as its name suggests, was designed to intercept Soviet aircraft across the North sea. It is not an agile fighter in the term in which that is understood. Indeed, its limitations were shown in the Gulf war, when the scope of operations on which it could be sent was substantially limited.
Eurofighter was designed against the SU27, a Soviet, now Russian, aircraft, which, with its derivatives, is freely available. It is sold not quite at knock-down prices, but at economic and encouraging rates. There is every chance that, on some future occasion, Royal Air Force pilots carrying out operations on behalf either of the UK or, perhaps more likely, of the UN or NATO, might find themselves flying against aircraft of the capability of the SU27. It is right that we should provide those pilots with the best possible equipment in the form of an aircraft that is capable of dealing with that threat.

633
No European option is as capable. Neither the French Rafale nor the Grippen has the capability. Of course, there are American choices; we flirted with some of them when Mr. Michael Portillo had stewardship of the MOD. It sounded rather paradoxical. We were going to hire second-hand F16s while leasing out F3s to the Italians, whose need for Eurofighter is probably greater than anyone else's.
The Americans supply countries with an aircraft at very low initial cost, but then they get their pound of flesh by the substantial through-life costs that necessarily attach to it. An F16 procurement would signal the end of that particular technical capability in the UK. Nor is there any guarantee that we would receive the top-of-the-range model. When the Saudi Arabians bought the F15E from the United States, because of the United States' political sympathy for Israel, they were given not the top-of-the-range model, but something called the F15XS, an Fl5E minus. Pakistan wanted to purchase 16 F16s, but that sale was blocked by Congress for political reasons. It would not be right for us to embark on a programme that allowed us to be so dependent on opinion in Congress which, if I may put the matter delicately, is not always entirely sympathetic to our foreign policy objectives.
Eurofighter is important for the future of the European defence industrial base, but we are entitled—here I pay tribute to what the Secretary of State for Defence said about the need for effective use of resources—to demand cost-effective procurement. The National Audit Office report on defence procurement, which showed that only five out of 25 products met the in-service target dates, that overspending on some projects was as high as 10 per cent. and that the procurement budget was overspending by about £1.3 billion, made shocking reading.
We are entitled to expect that, when substantial sums of that order are invested in procurement, we obtain value for money. We have to remind ourselves only that the C130J is now 16 months late and that the Challenger 2 main battle tank is not yet universally in service. Those were important procurement decisions. It is unacceptable that the aircraft and the main battle tank are not yet in service. The NAO report went so far as to say that procurement was so far behind schedule that Britain's defences were being put at risk and that outdated ships, tanks and aircraft were being patched up at a cost of £400 million.
I should like to refer to three personnel issues. There is and there can be no place for racism in the armed forces of the United Kingdom. It is often associated with bullying and occurs because of prejudice. I cannot resist the conclusion that it flourishes where non-commissioned officers and other officers either ignore it or are not alive to the fact of its taking place. I believe that the culture of the armed services should be such that responsibility for racism is part of the chain of command.
The Government know my view about homosexuality—I believe it to be an issue of fundamental human rights. Virtually every other NATO country does not need a policy of the kind that we have. It was a highly controversial issue in the presidential campaign when Bill Clinton was first elected, but even there a compromise was reached. I predict that the Government will be
634
compelled by operation of law to change their policy. It would be far, far better to do it now with grace and without compulsion.
On the role of women, I welcome the principle that the Secretary of State has outlined. We should pause just for a moment, however, to remind ourselves that the armed services sometimes have to kill and are sometimes killed. Public opinion in this country would require some fairly careful tutoring before it was willing to accept the prospect of large numbers of women being killed in combat. I am an enthusiastic proponent of equality, as is, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman, but we are obliged to take that prospect into account.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to mention the infantry. As I reminded him at a meeting of the Defence Committee, we should recall that Mount Tumbledown was cleared by soldiers of the Scots Guards and other regiments, who used bayonets to clear Argentines out of the trenches. We must ask ourselves whether that is the sort of role that a society such as ours would easily envisage for women. Indeed, one must ask whether it is a role that women would want to fulfil. Some brakes may be applied to that policy and the extent to which universal equality of opportunity is either available or is sought to be taken up.
Mr. James Gray: The House would be fascinated to know the Liberal Democrat party's official policy on homosexuals in the armed forces.
Mr. Campbell: I just said it. In the previous Parliament we debated the issue on at least two occasions. The then Opposition spokesman, now Minister for the Armed Forces, made probably the best speech of the debate, but when the Division came he and I voted in separate Lobbies. I take the view that there should be no discrimination against people on the grounds of sex, gender or sexual orientation in the armed services or anywhere else. I repeat that virtually every other member country of NATO is able to offer effective, well-managed and well-led forces to the NATO effort without having such a policy in place. There is no secret about Liberal Democrat policy and I am happy to spell it out once again.
I should like to discuss Bosnia, which was also mentioned by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). We are entering a most delicate stage in considering the future of the NATO-led deployment in Bosnia and there will have to be some careful negotiation. Perhaps I could suggest some principles for consideration. First, we should not throw away the gains of the past two years, imperfect though some of them may have been. Secondly, I believe that the United Kingdom should be willing to continue to be part of an international force by whatever name it may be described with the intention—and one would hope the achievement—of maintaining peace support in Bosnia.
Thirdly, a substantial United States presence is required, but whether that can be on the ground raises some very difficult political issues, particularly for President Clinton and Congress. We should have some sensitivity towards them, although I do not shrink from the principle that the presence of the United States is important for both political and military reasons and that a presence on the ground would be an encouragement and an endorsement of the efforts of others.

635
We should not shrink from assuming a greater role of leadership in Bosnia, consistent with the safety of United Kingdom forces, because we have a proficiency in peace support—it is probably unrivalled—as a direct result of our experience in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State has set his hand to a fundamental defence review. The consequences of what he and the Government decide will affect the nature of defence in this country for a long time because even if there is a change of Government in 2002, by then significant and important decisions will have been taken which will not be capable of reversal or will be capable of only minor modification. It is in the interests not just of the House but of the country that those decisions are as well informed as they can be and that they are in the long-term interests of the country.
So long as the Secretary of State maintains that principle, he will certainly have our support, but he must expect that we will want to be certain that the assumptions upon which he makes his decisions are valid.
6.45 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I rise to speak as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. One of the great advantages of being the Chairman of a Committee is that one has the chance of being called in a debate. There was a time in the 1970s when a Labour Back Bencher had every likelihood of getting called, but as Labour took more interest in defence issues it became increasingly difficult. I am glad I stand a much better chance now.
I have served on the Defence Committee since 1979, when we still had sailing ships in the Royal Navy and rather imperfect weapons to defend the country. The reports of the Defence Committee that I have amassed since 1979 stand yards long on my shelves. One thing has characterised the near 200 reports that we have produced; virtually every one was critical of the Government, whatever aspect of defence we examined.
I am delighted to see that one of the old hands of our Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), is present. He will be able to advise his colleague, the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), when to keep his mouth shut, which should be for much of the time. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his rapid deployment from Ealing to north Hampshire, which will provide a model for our armed forces in the future on how to get from one environment to a totally different one—to our collective advantage.
I have served under seven Chairmen of the Defence Committee, and in all honesty they have all been truly excellent. Unfortunately, membership of the Defence Committee carries with it something like the curse of Lord Gnome. Sir Nicholas Bonsor was Chairman; then he was relegated to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and then he lost his seat. Sir Nicholas Fairbairn died, and Winston Churchill did not stand for re-election. I hope that he is not signing on at his local employment exchange—I doubt it. Neville Trotter was a member of the Committee from 1992, but he did not stand for re-election. Keith Mans, another member of the Committee, lost his seat at the election. The curse of Lord Gnome even applies to the Secretary of State for Defence, and in recent years two of them met the same fate as most of the colleagues I have mentioned.
636
I am sad to record that some of the stalwart members of our Committee, notably my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), and the hon. Members for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and for Salisbury, no longer serve on it. I greatly regret that. The current membership of the Committee is new, because just four members of the previous Committee survived the election. We are all having to learn a great deal—some have a greater obligation to learn than others—but I am sure that, in time, that deficiency in our knowledge will be rectified.
The previous Select Committee, of which the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) was Chairman, gave the new Committee an agenda, asking us please to follow up some of its inquiries and produce reports, and we will do so. We will reflect on that period of change in our security orientation, but there will be a continuation of some of the almost inexorable features of British security policy since the second world war.
One such feature is the progressive, although erratic and unplanned, decline of defence expenditure. When Labour left office in 1979, defence expenditure had averaged 4.9 per cent. of gross domestic product; now it is 2.7 per cent., and under the previous Government it was projected to fall to 2.4 per cent. I know that not all my hon. Friends will agree, but I believe that, if we are to have a credible defence and foreign policy, we are approaching, or have reached, the bedrock. As the shadow Secretary of State said, and as the hon. Member for Salisbury agreed by signing up to the last report of the previous Select Committee, any further cuts would endanger the defence of the realm.
All Defence Select Committees since 1979 have critically evaluated the actions of the Ministry of Defence, and I have no doubt that the present Committee will do exactly the same and produce an endless stream of critical reports. We are gearing ourselves up for the publication of the strategic defence review report in the spring. We will visit Bosnia next week and the United States in January. We are evaluating the way in which the United States has conducted its quadrennial review process.
We have signed up some excellent advisers, have had several months to prepare, and eagerly await the fruits of the strategic defence review. I am not in any way opposed to an imaginative approach, but if it is true that the Treasury has got its hands on the review, that is very much to be regretted. Anyone who wants to evaluate the pernicious role that the Treasury has played in defence over the years should read much that has been written about the 1930s. The Treasury is not the most suitably qualified institution to evaluate our future strategic and security orientation. It must be there to advise, but I hope that the Ministry of Defence will not fall prostrate before it.
Several of our reports have recently been commented on by the new Government, and I hope that the new Committee will proceed, on the advice of the previous Committee, with inquiries into the sale of the married quarters estate, which was not one of the previous Government's wisest decisions. I certainly hope that we will follow up our third report on defence medical services.
I am sure that we are approaching a consensus, as the Labour party got so much better on defence just as the previous Government got so much worse. We have

637
perhaps achieved parity, and both Government and Opposition spokesmen have a great deal of recent history to live down; I shall enjoy the spectacle as they try to do so.
Defence cost study 15 epitomises the way in which the previous Government managed the decline in defence expenditure. It was probably the worst researched and most disastrous part of the review. I will not bore the House with more than a few key sentences from a report that we all know had an in-built Conservative majority. It said:
"The current state of the Defence Medical Services is an indictment of MOD's ability to manage change. No amount of self-justification can disguise the fact that the country does not have a medical service capable of looking after the maximum number of soldiers the UK plans to deploy in a crisis."
We said that defence cost study 15 was a disgrace, and that shortage of staff remained a key issue. We recommended that the Ministry conduct an effective review of the operation of the defence medical services. I very much hope that that review will be conducted during this Parliament.
Our report said:
"staff shortages in the Defence Medical Services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will recover. It is possible that the military ethos of medicine in the regular armed forces has been destroyed. It seems incredible that the scaling down of the Defence Medical Services has been effected by MOD in such a manner as to allow a major and potentially critical staff shortage to develop."
I hope that our Committee and the Ministry of Defence will examine the sale of MOD estate and the rundown of defence medical services.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Before the hon. Gentleman, who is my Chairman on the Defence Select Committee, moves on from the sale of married quarters estate, does he agree that the future level of rent rises for armed forces married quarters is an important piece of unfinished business, especially in the light of the strain on families that has been emphasised by hon. Members of all parties?
Mr. George: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as he was one of the few hon. Members who had the courage to abstain on the matter in the previous Parliament, after a great deal of pressure was exerted on him by the Whips. I hope that our Committee will follow the request of the previous Committee and revisit the issue, although it must be obvious to everyone that the die has been cast and the sale completed.
I also hope that we will return to the question of the Ministry of Defence police and security. Security cannot be compromised, and I hope that no more bits of Trident, or anything else, will go missing. Fraud in the MOD continues to be investigated, and if we continue to lose parts of Trident, as we apparently have in the past few years, supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament will be able to claim that Britain has indeed denuclearised.
The Committee will return to the issue of heavy lift—I am profoundly disappointed that Lockheed Martin has failed as yet to deliver the C130J—and I hope that we will consider merchant shipping, most of which has disappeared in the past 15 years. I trust that we shall
638
continue to investigate Gulf war syndrome—if that is the correct phrase—and I welcome the positive and supportive view taken by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces; I compliment him, and I hope that he will soon repeat his visit of a few months ago to the Committee, because we are committed to monitoring continuously what is being done in the MOD to further research something that I believe was detrimental to our armed forces.
Mr. Peter Viggers: The hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of my former Committee, will remember that towards the end of the previous Parliament I spoke in the Committee about the difference between the Ministry of Defence's attitude towards serving soldiers, sailors and airmen and its attitude towards those who had retired. The latter often find it difficult to get justice for an injury sustained as a result of service. Will the Committee consider that matter?
Mr. George: I very much regret the hon. Gentleman's disappearance from our number, and I recall vividly that he persuaded the previous Committee to pursue the subject of the way in which the Ministry of Defence compensates those who have suffered as a result of service on behalf of the Crown.
We are still in the process of considering compensating the soldiers who suffered cancer as a result of the atomic tests of the 1950s. I would not encourage anyone to believe that the MOD moves at more than glacial speed. Nevertheless, the issue must be taken up, and I shall put it to the Committee when we have completed our strategic defence review inquiry, which will dominate our activities over the next few months.
I have a few more points on issues that the Defence Committee took up but on which it was not satisfied with the answers received. On the new defence college, I regret that the Greenwich Royal Naval college will no longer be put to the purpose for which it was devised. I suggested that that building or the new millennium park could serve as an exhibition of MOD, War Office or Admiralty foul-ups over the past 200 or 300 years, but I was advised that there was not enough room. I had a number of ideas about what could be included. Certainly the period 1979 to 1997 would have required a great deal of space.
The whole concept of the future defence college has been most maladroitly pursued over the past two or three years. I very much regret the fate of Greenwich Royal Naval college. Perhaps it is not entirely too late to reappraise.
The Defence Committee will visit Bosnia shortly. We have the second largest force there, and it is almost patronising to repeat how wonderful it is. I hope that the United States will not abandon its commitment to Bosnia or scale down its forces to a level that would render its contribution less than a critical mass. As was said in the press today, the US cannot deploy only its naval and air forces and withdraw its land forces; their presence is critical. I hope that the US Congress will see how very important is the continuing presence in large numbers of US armed forces.
In a few days, the hon. Member for Romsey and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will join me on a visit to Bonn, where we shall discuss with our colleagues on the Defence

639
Committee in Germany the future of the Eurofighter. I hope that Germany will remain in the programme. Germany's Government want it, our Government want it, and I hope that the German Parliament will accept that it is necessary.
I am sad that Vickers is getting out of car production. The next time that it appears before the Defence Committee and plays the Union Jack card, I shall politely remind it that, having sustained its production of tanks, and not yet having seen the product of the vast investment that the country has put into keeping an indigenous tank capability, Sir Colin Chandler and his colleagues should have considered more seriously the need to retain Rolls-Royce, which is surely the flagship of Britain's industry. Perhaps Sir Colin will soon visit the Defence Committee to explain how successful his company has been in producing the Challenger tank.
Lastly, I welcome the new defence teams to the first of many head-banging sessions. I hope that the House will be able to reach a degree of consensus. We require competent armed forces and competent doctrine. Competent forces can be provided only by adequate resources. As a legislature, it is our task not only to consider the threat now, next week or next month; the decisions of the strategic defence review will have to last for the next quarter of a century. That requires a far-sightedness for which neither Treasuries nor legislatures are well equipped.
I only hope that we can break the habits of a lifetime and provide properly funded armed forces that are not grossly overstretched, to serve our needs and those of our NATO and European partners and of the United Nations. I must repeat that we have reached the bedrock of defence expenditure, and that any further cuts will endanger the defence of the realm.
7.3 pm
Mr. Tom King: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who has been a distinguished and active member of Defence Select Committees over many years. I congratulate him on his promotion to the chairmanship of the Committee. Without in any way wishing offence, I must say that the Secretary of State would have learned a lot more if he had stayed because the hon. Gentleman knows much more about defence than the Secretary of State has yet been able to learn.
The Secretary of State is a good and agile debater but the jury is obviously still out on whether he will be any good as Secretary of State. One of his colleagues shopped him before he even started. I hung on to a quotation in The Independent from a shadow Minister in January—I apologise for the language—who said:
"Look, none of us has the first sodding idea about what government means, whether any of us will be any good at it, or even what being good at it means.
In many respects the skills required in opposition are diametrically opposite to the skills needed in government. Some of my colleagues have made a career out of being a conduit for leaks from the civil service to the press. That's hardly going to be much good in government."
On today of all days, it is quite clear that some still carry on the practice.
I said that the jury must still be out on whether the Secretary of State will be any good in the most difficult job in a Labour Government. The Chairman of the
640
Defence Committee spelt out that we have reached bedrock. In launching the defence review, the Secretary of State said that no one would seriously expect defence to get any more money. That was not the best foot to put forward with the Treasury in starting a review. It would have pocketed the quotation and realised that it was downwards only from then on.
This is our first debate on defence under the new Government. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has written to me to ask whether I would be prepared to talk to him about defence policy. I will do so. That is a constructive approach. On the defence of our country, we will certainly stand up for what we believe is right and, as a party, defend the policies that we have stood for in the past. We are proud of what we have done on defence. However, we all care about our country and defence is one of the areas where the US approach of being more bipartisan on defence and overseas matters is appropriate. We have managed to encourage the Labour party to a much more constructive defence policy than that which it adopted in the past. Its beliefs are going in the right direction; the challenge is whether it will be able to carry those beliefs through with the necessary resources.
I am afraid that in marking the card so far, it has been a difficult start for the Secretary of State. Under no circumstances should the position of Secretary of State for Defence be a consolation prize for not being Secretary of State for Scotland. Lord Younger of Prestwick has been mentioned. On more than adequately discharging his duties as Secretary of State for Scotland, he was promoted to Secretary of State for Defence. That is the relative order of importance of the two roles.
In not expecting more money and in his approach to the review, anyone who considers the problems of stretch faced by our armed forces must recognise that defence may require more funds if demands on and expectations of our armed forces grow. I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about the fine, but I noted the speed with which it was conceded and announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made the telling point that it was the Chancellor who announced the decision about the royal yacht. I have a nasty feeling that the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary will announce more defence decisions, leaving us faced with a fait accompli.
The Secretary of State's assumption that a fine was involved and money was automatically going to be taken from his budget is an entirely new concept. I do not know who gave him that idea—I am sorry that I could not have an earlier consultation with him as I might have stiffened his back on that issue.
We are having the first defence debate of this Labour Government and it is no secret—everyone in the House knows it—that the country and the armed forces are suspicious of the Labour party on defence matters. It is no good thinking that if the manifesto states that the party believes in a strong defence that will meet all the fears and anxieties of those who serve in our armed forces. They are waiting to see what is actually done.
One of the Labour Government's first deeds involved the Chancellor saying that the Government would put more money into the health service this winter and that that money would come out of the defence budget. Anyone who knows the armed forces or who has talked to service men will realise that that act immediately

641
reinforced their fear that it would turn out to be the start of a process. The announcement has been very damaging to morale.
Nobody in the armed forces or the Ministry of Defence is encouraged by the theory that the review will not be Treasury led. Being foreign policy led is not necessarily a great credential either. Let us imagine what would have happened if we had had a foreign policy-led review in earlier years. The Foreign Office did not foresee the Falklands or the Gulf wars. It never said, "Some 10 per cent. of our armed forces will have to be committed to peacekeeping in Bosnia in five years' time." The Foreign Office did not foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union or the iron curtain with anything like the speed at which they happened.
I think that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made the point that, quite apart from foreign policy, there must be a defence policy for this country. I did not go along with his quaint idea of amalgamating the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. I had not heard the idea before and I shall have to reflect on whether that is Liberal Democrat policy.
There is a core defence requirement. The Foreign Office does not always foresee the problem, but once it comes along, it expects the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces to do whatever is necessary. That is why this country needs a defence-led policy that does not depend on the best guess and the best forecast of the Foreign Office. I do not necessarily criticise the Foreign Office because I do not think that, given a list of the 10 most likely things to happen, many hon. Members would have marked off the Falklands war or said that 45,000 of our men and women in the armed forces would be involved in the Gulf in a high-intensity conflict. We sold our desert uniforms about three years before the Gulf war and I do not blame the Ministry of Defence for that—people thought that our desert days were over. I am merely showing the difficulty of trying to make predictions, and stating why we need to have a flexible and mobile defence policy to meet the different, and always unexpected, challenges.
Mr. Blunt: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Having served in both Departments, the one conclusion that I have reached is that the Foreign Office believes that it can spend the MOD's budget much better than the MOD.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend understands my point very well.
I wish to turn to a muddled bit of the Secretary of State's speech. I am not sure whether he was attacking "Options for Change" or saying that it was about right, but that that was where we should now stand. He spoke of it being inert and incoherent; he should be careful.
I warn Ministers to be careful about what they say about "Options for Change". It was masterminded by Lord Vincent, who later became the Chief of Defence Staff and was widely respected. He then went on to become an excellent chairman of the military committee of NATO. "Options for Change" was a two-headed operation. Its second head was the present permanent secretary, who was widely regarded as one of the brightest minds in the Ministry of Defence at the time.
642
"Options for Change" has effectively stood the test of time; it has not been reversed. The only significant change made to the options programme that I announced was that when the need for peacekeeping in Bosnia came on the horizon my successor, Malcolm Rifkind, took advantage of the provision within the programme which meant that, if necessary, the infantry level could be reviewed. We increased the number of infantry regiments by two battalions, from 38 to 40. Across the breadth of the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, the decisions recommended by Lord Vincent and Richard Mottram and their study groups in "Options for Change", and carried out with due dispatch, have all stood the test of time.
"Options for Change" was never intended to be a slippery slope down which people could slide. It was always intended that we should move from the cold war, when we faced the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, to a post cold war situation where our military requirements were at a lower plateau—not on a slope, but at a lower plateau.
I accept that there was a case for "Front Line First". We had done much work on what our front-line strength should be, and there was a case for examining the rear echelon, much of the military and MOD estate, and a range of other matters—what might be called the MOD's overheads. But that having been done, I have been saying to my colleagues—and I made it clear to my colleagues when they were in government—that that was the position at which we should stop. One cannot maintain morale in the armed forces of a country or the calibre of personnel required unless one makes it clear that, having made changes, that then is the stability.
The one great disappointment that we all share involves the problem of stretch. My ambition in announcing the reduction in the armed forces was to make it clear that when we moved to a lower level of commitment we would achieve—which we had not achieved before—the 24-month gap between operational tours. For various reasons—Bosnia, the varying requirements of Northern Ireland and recruitment difficulties have quite a lot to do with it—we have not achieved that aim.
There was an acronym in the MOD which I inherited and which many people have forgotten about: MARILYN, as in Marilyn Monroe, which stands for manning and recruitment in the lean years of the nineties. It involves a demographic problem and it was one of the issues that we had to take into account in "Options for Change" when deciding on what we thought would be a sustainable level. MARILYN and the demographic problem of the number of people of recruitment age has meant that it has proved even more difficult than we anticipated in "Options for Change". I hope that we can approach the challenge of enhancing recruitment to the armed forces on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we can return to the 24-month operational tour interval, otherwise there will be difficulties in maintaining morale in the armed forces.
The second challenge that we face is both a constituency and a national issue. It involves procurement problems that flow from lower levels of demand in peacetime, when essential national capabilities cannot be maintained because there is an inadequate level of national procurement.
I have in my constituency a Royal Ordnance factory, which is the only producer of military explosive in this country and on which a significant amount of our

643
ammunition supplies depend. Other hon. Members have Royal Ordnance factories in their constituencies and know that the issues currently affecting Royal Ordnance are a real problem. Royal Ordnance is a subsidiary of British Aerospace, which is currently embarking on mergers and collaborative arrangements with various companies in different fields. We have just talked about Eurofighter, but in the Royal Ordnance field the company is considering a possible merger with a French company. I accept that, in the defence field, there are often many good or even essential reasons for international collaboration, but this merger involves a possible arrangement whereby certain manufacture will come to this country and certain manufacture will go to France and one of the current proposals might lead to the only source of ammunition explosive being transferred to France.
The first requirement of any defence policy is national security. Forget our international alliances: although they are important and we must play our international role and collaborate with our allies where we can, at the end of the day, it is any Government's responsibility to ensure that we can maintain our essential national security, and ammunition explosive is an absolutely key national requirement. I was Secretary of State when one of our NATO allies refused to supply us with ammunition under the collaborative arrangement that applied within NATO. They were able to claim that it did not apply because the Gulf war was not a NATO matter.
In the case of France, I am conscious that, no matter how many agreements have been signed, the French were not in agreement with us over the Falklands—as we know, Exocet was one of the biggest threats we faced in the Falklands—and nor were they initially in agreement with us over the Gulf war. There was a significant pause before the French Government decided to join in and it is no secret that my then opposite number at the French Ministry of Defence was also the chairman of the Franco-Iraqi friendship society, which slightly compromised his position. Only this week at the United Nations, where we and the United States are pressing for a tightening of sanctions against Iraq in connection with Mr. Ekeus and his efforts to get greater co-operation from the Iraqis, the French have opposed and obstructed our efforts because they are hoping to do a new deal on oil and starting to establish closer trading relationships.
France is our ally and a friend with whom we work closely, but it is impossible to say that we will always have an identity of interest on foreign policy. In addition, it has to be said that even when the Government of France are in favour and showing full co-operation, the capacity of French lorry drivers, farmers or others to make damn sure that supplies do not move down French roads or along French railways is legendary.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State is present, because he can speak on behalf of his right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, with whom I have been in close contact about these issues. This matter makes both a constituency point and a wider national point: we must ensure that certain capabilities are not lost altogether, even though they are less required at present. During the Gulf war, we found ourselves in a high-intensity conflict in which our Royal Air Force and our artillery fired quantities of ammunition and munitions that were beyond the scale of our previous expectations. We have a duty to our armed forces—to which I pay
644
tribute as has every other hon. Member who has spoken—to ensure that, if we put them in harm's way, they have the resources they need.
Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: No—I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me.
My point is that we face a difficult procurement issue. I have suggested to Royal Ordnance and British Aerospace that they present to the Ministry of Defence an assessment of the cost of ensuring that we at least retain production capability. Although our current requirements may be low, we must retain in this country capabilities in line with our essential national security. I have great respect and admiration for those with whom I worked at the Ministry of Defence, but I am not sure that they appreciate the challenge presented by issues of this nature. Our ordnance requirement is one of those issues and a new approach is needed.
7.25 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who gave some of the vital statistics of the Ministry of Defence. He was a distinguished Secretary of State for Defence and a courageous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I appreciated the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who made a measured set of remarks and, in a low-key delivery, evidenced some considerable attachment to principle.
Listening to the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I was reminded of those days when I was on the squash court with him and, now as then, he was gentlemanly in his proceedings. However, when he attacked spinning, he hit his own wicket, and his remarks about the Welsh Assembly were inexplicable. I shall pick up on his point about the jury being out on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend has made an excellent start and I have no doubt whatever that in the months and years ahead he will continue to dominate the important brief that he now holds.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his open and sincere speech, notwithstanding the many interventions that he had to field. I shall support his objectives of efficiency, value for money and flexibility. He made an historic set of remarks when he ran up the flag of equality of opportunity; I support him in that and wish him well. I shall watch with interest how he translates the ideal into practice. What is certain is that, for many years, our nation has been subjected to a huge social revolution, which is on-going and incomplete. We would be foolish to think that the armed forces could be insulated from the effects of that revolution.
I should like to express my gratitude to the junior Ministers. To me and my constituents, they have been very accessible. During the few months in which the Government have been in office, I have been able to take at least three deputations to see each of the Ministers who sit in this House. I am grateful for the time that they have given to the worries and hopes of my constituents. Within three weeks of taking office, my hon. Friend the Minister

645
for the Armed Forces met three of my constituents who suffer seriously from Gulf war illness. It was instructive to see a Defence Minister personally, in his room, attempting to come to grips with the problems experienced by Mr. Ritchie Turnbull, Mr. Mark Doyle and Mr. David Robertson. Each of those men is ill; each was a good service man who gave his best for his country in the Gulf. Now, I find them to be in a deteriorating state of health and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for giving them a full hour of his time. I hope that those three constituents will obtain the best treatment and get full compensation in the fulness of time.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that many people in that category are worried that the years are passing by and they could be out of term very quickly for any claims, on which they might be entitled to receive compensation?
Mr. Jones: That is a shrewd intervention. It is my fear, too. I choose my words carefully: at least one of my constituents is seriously ill, and he has received medical advice that he urgently needs a variety of treatments. I want him to make a full recovery, but I know that he is seriously ill. I accept all that the hon. Gentleman implies, therefore, and I would make that point as well. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will have that in mind.
Regarding heavy lift, many of my constituents are employed by British Aerospace and by the Airbus company. More than 3,000 of my constituents make the wings of the Airbus aircraft. They are a superb work force, highly skilled and loyal, and they meet every challenge successfully. They hope to be able to make the wing of the future large aircraft.
I ask the Government: what is the status of the future large aircraft? How are our Government negotiating and working alongside, for example, the Governments of Germany and of France in that important project? Many thousands of families in north-east Wales, in the north-west, in Cheshire and especially in my constituency are anxious to have the answers about that big project.
I am bewildered by the fact that the C130J is behind time by, I believe, 17 months. I did not want the contract to go to the specific company that it went to—of course, I was biased because my constituents have a strong interest in the future large aircraft—but I am perplexed by the delay in delivery, and I believe that there are problems also in airworthiness, if that is not too simplistic a statement. My constituents would be appalled if the future large aircraft were not built and our Government bought the C17 instead. That is a constituency point, but it is also a European, and indeed a national, point. I feel no guilt whatever in making it on behalf of a superb work force.
I also have the Raytheon aerospace factory in my constituency. I emphasise to the Government that in the constituency we have the unique skills and expertise, developed over many years, for the manufacture of special commission aircraft, and that we are relying totally on the ASTOR—airborne stand-off radar—project to keep the skills base and associated jobs alive, for the benefit not only of Wales, the north-west and my constituency but, in this instance, on so massive a project, of the country.
646
I want to be sure that the Government will make every effort to ensure that the ASTOR project goes to the team offering the best technical solution, the lowest risk and the best value for money. I believe that to be the Raytheon team; I am entitled to say that because I genuinely believe that it is not only a very important constituency matter, but important nationally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), one of the parliamentary private secretaries in the Department, has visited us. He came to my constituency, met the Raytheon Jets work force and toured the plant. He made a good impression, and we told him that we needed the ASTOR project and that we wanted to service the Department's Dominie aircraft. I repeat that message today.
There is in my constituency what I believe to be the best maintenance unit in Europe—RAF Sealand. Nearly 1,700 uniformed and civilian staff work there. It makes a massive contribution to the economy of my constituency, and the skills there are unbelievable. The unit's record during the Falklands war—when it worked around the clock—and the Gulf war was superb. I want the Department to invest further in the work of RAF Sealand. I find that, whenever the unit is challenged, it comes up with the goods. I invite the Secretary of State to visit RAF Sealand at an appropriate time to see how it works and how it has managed to keep our marvellous fliers in the air in several wars.
In terms of research and development, historically, our nation has neglected to invest sufficiently in the aerospace industry as it affects the responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence. I know from British Aerospace that, annually, there are about £5 billion of export sales, in which 400,000 jobs in Britain are involved. If in the next century we wish to maintain a lead over our competitors, indeed over our potential enemies, should there be any—surely there will be—the Government, not simply the Ministry, must address the problem of research and development.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, my last point refers to the contribution made to defence matters by British Aerospace. I am told that it has an order book of £20 billion—a massive amount; that it is involved in 28 collaborative ventures throughout the world; that its annual sales are equivalent to about £7 billion; and that about 72 nations are its customers. Most important for the future, as for now, there are 47,000 employees at British Aerospace. Happily, it has taken on about 500 graduates in recent times. Above all, that company now represents Britain's largest reservoir of skilled employees.
If we took away the company of British Aerospace and the aerospace industry, Britain would be in desperate straits. I emphasise to my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers the fact that they should never neglect those issues.
7.37 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me on the first day of this two-day defence debate. I have three points to make, to which I would greatly appreciate a response from the Minister. One concerns the ballistic missile defence of Europe. The second concerns the threat to our defences posed by the so-called millennium bug—the inability of most computer systems to recognise the year 2000. Thirdly, I shall repeat to the Government the appeal that

647
I made to the previous Government, to inquire into the use—I would call it the abuse—of young national service men in research in Porton Down in the 1950s, which has permanently impaired their health.
I pursued the issue of ballistic missile defence in the annual defence debates in the House in 1994 and 1995, when I shared my concerns with hon. Members about the fact that neither this country nor Europe had a firm, clear or coherent policy on ballistic missile defence. I regret to say that that remains the case today. As the threat has come even closer now, I assume that the Government' s strategic defence review includes missile defence in its terms of reference.
In the March edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology, the assistant director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Terence Taylor, is quoted as saying:
"There is no coherent European view on missile defence. There is a confused situation about what is the real threat and what we would defend in Europe, and who is European. If you look into the budgets you don't find anything."
If that is true, it is very alarming.
There has of course been a missile threat to western Europe for the past 55 years, ever since the Nazis developed cruise missiles—the V1 s, which killed 5,000 British civilians—and then ballistic missiles—the V2s, which killed 2,500 Londoners. Today that missile technology which the Germans pioneered is more easily obtainable than ever before and it has been used several times in recent years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) has just referred to the two British ships sunk by Exocet missiles during the Falklands war; and during one phase of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq rained down missiles on Tehran, killing 2,000 citizens. Then, during the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein used his strongest card to attack Israeli towns and an American base in Saudi Arabia—his Al Hussein-Scud missiles. In March this year, China fired four ballistic missiles into the sea near Taiwan during the latter's presidential elections. Although that did not intimidate the voters, it caused Lloyd's of London to refuse to insure any ship going to Taiwan. That certainly damaged its economy, and that of Japan, temporarily.
We should not ignore those recent events. Missiles have been used to destroy, to threaten and to intimidate. They can affect whole economies and foreign policies. Today a growing number of third-world Governments are buying or developing missiles, which are easier to man and cheaper to acquire than squadrons of fighter aircraft. According to Lancaster university, 35 non-NATO countries have ballistic missiles, and 18 of them are capable of installing nuclear, biological or chemical warheads on them.
As the House will know, the greatest menace are the five rogue regimes, some of which help each other's missile programmes: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea. Fired from Libya, North Korean No-dong missiles with a range of 700 miles would threaten southern Europe, while the Taepo Dong two-stage rockets that it is developing, with a range of 2,500 to 4,000 miles, would threaten all the capitals of Europe—including London.
How long will we observe those developments without responding to them with a clear policy? Three years ago, when I referred to those developments in a report to the Western European Union, I caused a flurry by suggesting
648
a worst case scenario of Algeria falling to the Islamic fundamentalists. That could have a domino effect throughout the coast of north Africa, with Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt falling to equally hostile regimes that would quickly be armed by Libya and Iran, with missiles trained on Europe as well as Israel.
All that could happen within weeks. No doubt the United States would seek to intervene; but who can say, as the carnage in Algeria continues every week, that such a scenario is implausible? The Lancaster university team also estimates that 67 non-NATO countries possess cruise missiles. Any future western rapid reaction force, including British forces, in an out-of-area operation will now need far greater protection than was provided during Desert Storm.
I look forward to the Minister's response to four questions about ballistic missile defences which I want to put to him. First, what is the Department's response to the British Aerospace-led pre-feasibility study on missile defence hardware? I believe that the study was reported to the previous Government earlier this year. Secondly, will the Minister take Britain into the medium extended air defence system project, with the United States, Germany and Italy, for international co-operation and cost sharing in the development of anti-missile systems; and will he urge France to return to the project?
Thirdly, will the Minister encourage NATO to be the instrument for developing and deploying a European ballistic missile defence system—the system for which Michael Portillo called in his speech in Brussels a year ago?
Finally, during a WEU visit to the United States in July, I was encouraged to learn of two new significant developments in missile defence—the first such for several years. One was a United States air force contract to Boeing Lockheed Martin to develop an airborne laser to shoot down ballistic missiles shortly after launch—the ideal time to shoot them down, while the missiles are still over the launching country and at their most vulnerable.
The second significant development is a laser defence system known as the infra-red advanced chemical laser which, either ground based or satellite based, would defend satellite systems from missile attack. Both projects, using lasers as weapons, run contrary to existing treaties. In the light of the perceived threats to which the development of those projects is a response, I must ask the Minister whether the treaties should now be renegotiated.
The House will recall the concern that I have expressed in several speeches and countless questions during the past two years about the consequences of most computer systems not recognising the year 2000, for this country and the rest of the world. I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to my Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill on Friday 28 November; it will do much to protect British business from those consequences.
As Governments and private businesses are discovering, although tackling the problem is a comparatively simple task for a computer programmer, the real issue is the sheer scale of the problem: there is not enough time left to avoid difficulties. It is a question of priorities. Earlier this year the Daily Mail, reporting the National Audit Office's report on the problem, warned that vital defence and weapons systems could suffer breakdowns and military computer systems could stop

649
functioning altogether, leaving Britain defenceless at the turn of the century. It quoted Michael Clark of the Centre for Defence Studies as saying:
"In the worst possible scenario we could have unguided missiles flying around—or none at all. Anti-tank missiles could hit the wrong target, or simply not fire. We have no way of knowing exactly what will happen."
I hope that the Minister will tell us this evening how the Department is responding, and that he can assure us that our defence systems will remain fully operational at the turn of the century. I have a copy of the United States Department of Defence year 2000 management plan, showing the Americans' response to the situation. Does our Department have something similar? I hope, too, that he will say what discussions he has had with our allies to make sure that they are preparing for the problem as well. Even if our systems have been made millennium compliant, if other systems with which they are connected are not, ours will crash along with them.
Exactly a year ago in an Adjournment debate, I drew attention to the position of certain former national service men, including my constituent Michael Paynter, who volunteered for research into the common cold at the chemical and biological defence establishment in Porton Down in the 1950s and whose health has been permanently destroyed by the experience. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), refused my request for a public inquiry. I have now written to his successor with the same request and was delighted to learn from his reply last month that he has taken the trouble to meet representatives of the Porton Down volunteers association. I thank him for the personal interest that he has taken in the matter, but he has not told me the action that he intends to take in the light of his meeting. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence was also present at that meeting. As Ministers will know, the matter is now being taken before the European Court of Human Rights. Is it not better to let the British Government deal openly with the matter than to have them respond grudgingly to the court's finding?
7.49 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is good to be back. The parliamentary summer recess was unacceptably long.
I am pleased that we are having this wide-ranging defence debate. I have enjoyed listening to a number of contributions, although I may not have agreed with all that has been said. I listened closely to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Bearing in mind the spirit of ecumenicism between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, I feel that I can safely say that I agreed with everything that he said. I make no apology for flagging that up.
The shadow Secretary of State referred to NATO enlargement and complained that there was no great debate on the issue in this country. To an extent, he and his colleagues are to blame. Regrettably, the only debate that I recall being held on the Floor of the House was initiated by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) in private Members' time. Part of the reason why this
650
extremely important issue is not discussed in the House is that the House does not ratify treaties. I hope that, when the Government discuss their constitutional agenda, they will look at the wider issue of the House being able to confirm or ratify treaties or amendments to treaties. That would be good in general and would ensure that we had, in the House and elsewhere, a full debate about the important matter of NATO enlargement, which I whole-heartedly support in principle.
I very much welcome the fact that the Madrid summit gave Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic the prospect of early admission to NATO. My only regret is that Slovenia was left out for no other reason than that existing NATO members decided—for reasons that I accept—to tell Romania that it should wait for some time and, rather than leave Romania to face its disappointment alone, felt that they must leave out 1 million people in Slovenia to smooth over Romania's disappointment.
I welcome the extension of NATO because it is a matter of right. It is 51 years since Winston Churchill spoke at Fulton, Missouri and said:
"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an Iron Curtain has descended across the Continent behind which we must refer to it as the Soviet sphere."
What were the past 50 years about if not to acknowledge that, when countries are free, they are entitled to join an association of free nations? For half a century, we were telling the peoples of central Europe to look over the wall at how wonderful a market economy was. When communism collapsed, the Warsaw pact finished, the wall came down, the barbed wire was rolled up and they asked whether they could join the club, some people said, "Hang on a minute, not so fast." That is totally unacceptable. It is a moral issue that we should be able to invite countries that can demonstrate a robust and enduring parliamentary democracy into the NATO club, and we took that first step at the Madrid summit.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who is no longer in his place, referred to the Baltic countries which can legitimately aspire to join NATO. We must not, however, devalue or dilute the security guarantees, which is why the extension of NATO should be taken in geographical stages. Another criterion for new NATO members is that they must make a commitment not just to parliamentary democracy but to internal human rights. At least one Baltic state has some distance to go before demonstrating that it can accommodate its minorities within a democratic constitutional structure. That is an important incentive or carrot. The aspiration of joining NATO has contributed to the rapprochement between Hungary and Romania, so it is good that nations are told that they can join defence organisations—an important symbol of democracy—if they are prepared to ensure the robustness of their parliamentary institutions.
I welcome this debate for a number of other reasons. I want to place on record my gratitude to the Minister for the Armed Forces for his initiative in the campaign with which I have been associated to seek pardons for soldiers executed in the Great War on charges ranging from cowardice to desertion, sleeping at their posts, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer. He agreed that there is now widespread support for acknowledgement by the state that injustice was done to those men, albeit a long time ago. I welcome the fact that he has referred the matter back to the various sections involved within the Ministry and I look forward to a positive response. It will

651
be welcomed by the men's families and the few remaining veterans from the Great War and, overwhelmingly, by British public opinion.
In the last Parliament, an early-day motion was signed by the majority of Back Benchers—perhaps even by a majority of the House—calling for a veterans Minister. I acknowledge that the present Government have gone some way, within the distribution of portfolios in the Ministry of Defence and other Departments, to meet the needs, aspirations and interests of people who have served in the armed forces and their widows or dependants. Nevertheless, I hope that a message will go back to the Prime Minister that there is a case for a Minister with a clear remit, among his other duties, to protect and promote the interests of veterans, their widows and dependants. It could be along the lines of the Minister for Sport. In all Administrations with a Minister for Sport, the Minister has had other responsibilities as well—for water, disasters and so on. This country, like most others, should have a Minister for veterans' affairs. I hope that the Prime Minister will consider that.
There are many veterans' issues. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned an ex-service man who volunteered for Porton Down. There is also Gulf war syndrome. I have taken a renewed interest in the disadvantage suffered by some war widows and war pensioners whose local authorities do not disregard their pensions in assessing housing benefit entitlement. I give a trailer for the Bill that I shall present on 5 November to try to end the exercise of discretion by a minority of local authorities. That is unfair both to pensioners in those areas and to local authorities that exercise their full discretion under the law.
I was pleased to go, during the recess, with a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), to HMS Invincible on the initiative of Captain Clare, the commanding officer. We spent a day at sea seeing and experiencing the great skills and dexterity of the craft and its crew, which allowed us to understand more fully the importance of the facilities of that amphibious craft and, if I may use the words of the commanding officer on that occasion, the capacity of a carrier like the Invincible to be on a "global neighbourhood watch". I thought that that was an apt description of our role and of the capacity of our carriers and amphibious craft.
It is interesting that some 10 per cent. of the crew of Invincible are women. It was clear that that was not seen as a problem by the commanders or by the men and women who serve on Invincible. There was a period when that might have been novel, and when those women would have been pioneers, and there might have been some difficulties, but once one gets over the problem and embraces it, the issue goes away. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might find that a matter for levity, but I think that it is serious.
The shadow Secretary of State said that he gave a cautious welcome to what the Minister said earlier in his announcement about women in the armed forces. I thought that the shadow Secretary of State was less than generous. Intellectually, he knows that what was announced today was entirely sensible, demonstrably fair and long overdue. He knows that, but he has behind him some Blimps who cannot comprehend that a substantial proportion of armed forces roles can be filled by the
652
female gender. It is a great pity that he could not say more robustly that he agreed with the Government on the matter.
Mr. Robert Key: I share the hon. Gentleman's admiration for the crew that day. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) was not giving a cautious welcome in that sense. There are problems, and I shall refer to some of them tomorrow—for example, the need to review the Army, Air Force and naval discipline Acts and to consolidate them into one. That opportunity has been missed for a decade. When there is joint service, as on that aircraft carrier, there are real problems concerning the different moral codes of the three services. That has caused genuine concern in many cases.
Mr. Mackinlay: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not problems; they are matters that must be addressed. They are not reasons for not welcoming the principle of the announcement by the Secretary of State. I shall not labour the point, but the Conservatives could have embraced it more generously this evening.
Also during the recess I have been signed up, if that is the correct term, to the parliamentary armed forces scheme. I am grateful that the Minister for the Armed Forces has decided to extend the number of places for hon. Members, and I encourage all hon. Members to take advantage of the extension. It is enormous fun, but that is a secondary issue. More importantly, it is extremely good in terms of briefing and allows us to understand the philosophy, camaraderie and skills of our armed forces personnel and the equipment that they use. I welcome my secondment to the Royal Marines.
My family fell about laughing when they heard that I was connected with the Royal Marines, then my wife inquired about insurance. However, I have been in safe hands. It has been well worth while and I am grateful to the commandant-general, Major-General Pennefather, and his colleagues for facilitating my visits to Royal Marines establishments.
Mr. John Burnett: It may not be known in the House, and it should be known by the hon. Gentleman, that tomorrow is the 333rd anniversary of the formation of the Royal Marines. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will join me in congratulating the corps—in which I am proud to have served—on a fantastic record, second to none, in defending Britain for centuries.
Mr. Mackinlay: This is an occasion on which I am delighted to have given way. It is pertinent for the hon. Gentleman to draw the attention of the House to that anniversary. I saw an absurd press report—in The Daily Telegraph, I think, so I do not take it tremendously seriously—of a suggestion that there should be a merger between the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment. I would welcome some reassurance from Ministers today or tomorrow that that was utter nonsense, which I am sure that it is. It would be important to those serving in the Parachute Regiment, the Royal Marines commandos and people associated with them for that nonsense to be put aside.

653
One of my visits was to the Royal Marines school of music, whose relocation to Hampshire was the subject of considerable debate at the time of "Options for Change" and subsequently in the House. I can report to the House that the school is well accommodated in suitable accommodation, and standards are being more than maintained. Under Lieutenant-Colonel Waterson, great efforts are being made to offer the men and women in the Marine band opportunities to qualify for music degrees during their period of service. That is a relatively new development, but it is in line with what is happening elsewhere in the armed forces, which I welcome. Service men and women are to be given increasing opportunities to attain civil qualifications, which will give them a sense of achievement and help them with their later careers.
My activities this summer have reinforced in my mind the importance of the flexibility and benefits that the United Kingdom derives from its carriers and other amphibious facilities around the world. That is important politically and militarily. Often, they can be deployed in advance of political decisions, so that Governments can be told that our armed forces are already in place, whether for humanitarian purposes, to rescue people in dire circumstances, as happened in the Caribbean this summer, or for peacekeeping purposes, to intervene where that is urgently required.
In the past five or six years, our forces have been involved in numerous peacekeeping operations and in providing humanitarian relief. All too often, those activities go unreported. The television cameras are often not there, and our forces are taken for granted. Hon. Members expect our armed forces to have that capacity. It is important for our role in the world that we have the facility to intervene in troubled areas or in areas where a crisis has been brought about by natural disaster.
Will Ministers assure us that, in addition to HMS Ocean, which is being constructed at Barrow-in-Furness and will be a major additional facility enlarging our capacity to mount amphibious operations, replacements will be ordered for Fearless and Intrepid? It is important that we should have such capacity, for the reasons that I outlined, both military and political.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I also spent some time on HMS Invincible as part of the Commons defence study group. I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the flexibility of aircraft carriers. Will the Minister consider not just Fearless, Intrepid and Ocean, but the Invincible class itself? Those are now old ships and we must start working on replacements for them as well.
Mr. Mackinlay: That is entirely correct. I am sold on the necessity for the United Kingdom to have the capacity to protect itself through its amphibious ability. A score or 25 years ago, we might have abandoned that facility. That would have been profoundly foolish, and one of the great historic mistakes.
Reference was made to the fact that our armed forces are under strength. The Royal Marines were short by 296 commandos in September 1997, and there are many thousands of vacant places in the Army, Navy and Air Force. I believe that the move to tri-service recruitment shops has not proved successful. I have taken the
654
opportunity—I invite other hon. Members to do likewise—to interview young men and women in our secondary schools to discover whether their appetites have been whetted regarding careers in the armed forces. I find that the concept is put to very few young men and women who have the physical and mental capacity to serve in our armed forces. With a bit more effort and imagination, perhaps we could fill the vacant posts in our armed forces with good-quality youngsters. I hope that the Government will introduce some initiatives in that regard.
There is another area worth mentioning in a defence debate, which I wish to raise. I understand why, in light of the IRA and security situations, it was decided that men and women in the armed forces should not wear their uniforms in public. However, I believe that that was an appeasement to terrorism to some extent, and I suspect that those who wish to murder members of our armed forces will always identify them in any event. If the ceasefire endures—I hope that it will—perhaps the Government will review that policy. Unlike people in other countries, the British public do not see their armed forces in uniform—which may also have a knock-on effect in recruitment terms. I hope that the matter will be reviewed in this new climate. Even if no instruction were given, perhaps individuals in our armed forces could have the option of wearing their uniforms in public.
I suppose that the kernel of this debate is the armed forces review. I am somewhat saddened that, although it is considered all right for the Conservatives to conduct an armed forces review, apparently it is not appropriate for a new Government to do likewise—despite the fact that the Labour party has been out of office for 18 years. It seems both prudent and fair that Government should have the opportunity to review and take stock of our defence position.
We have been told that it is a foreign policy-led review, and I shall dwell on that point for a moment. I welcome that approach. I am aware of our foreign policy requirements in broad-brush terms, as well as the expectations of the people of this country and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am at one with the Secretary of State on this point: if we have foreign policy commitments—of which we are all familiar—we must vote the means of fulfilling them. I agreed with everything that the Secretary of State—who, unfortunately, is not in his place—said. However, before he gets too excited, I must add that my election address did not contain the word "new"—I removed it completely.
Over the weekend, I noticed one or two of my colleagues who describe themselves as "new Labour" postulating in the media that there is scope for making major savings from Britain's armed forces. I do not share that view—especially if we are to maintain foreign policy expectations. At times of crisis, such as a natural disaster or genocide, Members on both sides of the House are the first to demand that the British Government—whether Conservative or Labour—intervene. By and large, I agree with that. However, we must remember—to put it bluntly and crudely—that, if we want to maintain our present role and capacity in the world, we must will the means. That does not come cheap. While there may be some opportunities to readjust the configuration of our role, we cannot use that possibility to support a reduction in the overall resources available to our armed forces. I am at one with the Secretary of State on that issue. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I tell those who think that they can have their cake and eat it that that is not possible.

655
My penultimate point concerns the volunteer and cadet forces. My county of Essex—if I may be parochial for a moment—has only 459 all ranks in the Territorial Army. I believe that the county deserves more not because I am from Essex but because I think that our territorial armed forces should be distributed evenly throughout the country. Essex is close to London, near the motorway and major transportation networks and has a substantial population. I think that there should be no further reduction in the Territorial Army or in volunteer forces generally, and certainly no such reduction in my county. There will be some opposition if that occurs.
I acknowledge the great service provided by the volunteers who run our cadet forces. There is a case for examining the funding of those forces. Funding should be maintained, but distributed more equitably in order to ensure that the three cadet forces are resourced sufficiently so that they may continue and enhance their important community role.
The shadow Secretary of State is now in his place. He referred to NATO and I hope that, contrary to his better judgment, he might find time to read in Hansard my references to his comments earlier. As I have said, I feel strongly about that subject. It is a matter of fact that the United States Senate will have to approve the widening of NATO membership, and I hope that it will not fail to approve that increase. If the United States did not approve the widening of NATO membership as recommended by the Madrid summit, I believe that it would be one of the few foolhardy acts committed by that country and comparable to its failure to join the League of Nations.
For all its faults and deficiencies, the United States has a proud defence record: its long arm reached across the Atlantic during some of our most desperate times. The United States has sustained and led NATO for more than half a century, and it would be a great tragedy if it were to fail to finish the job by extending NATO membership to the new, free, robust parliamentary democracies in central Europe. I hope that remarks in this place and the actions of our Ministers elsewhere will encourage United States senators to approve that important historic event and achieve an extension of democracy and security in Europe.
8.17 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I would be negligent if I failed to mention the contribution that the armed services have made in Northern Ireland over more than a quarter of a century. During that time, hundreds of young men and women have died in the defence of democracy and many thousands have been injured. The devotion to duty demonstrated by those young men and women is quite remarkable, given the fact that successive Governments have been without any coherent or cohesive policy on how to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
It is certainly no compliment to the courage and discipline of those young people that we now have the IRA, represented by unreconstructed terrorists, at the table of democracy. However, I shall not deal with that matter during my brief speech tonight; I want to concentrate on how the Ministry of Defence acts and reacts in respect of this nation's arms procurement so as to sustain the interests of our defence industry.
656
I move immediately to the development of our air-to-air capability. When the decision was made to equip our forces with Apache helicopters, it was recognised that they would require an effective air-to-air capability to defend themselves against enemy helicopters and other aircraft. There was what was called a mandatory option to equip with Starstreak or anything better. At that time, Starstreak had not been accepted into service, but it is now successfully deployed with United Kingdom forces as a vehicle-based, ground-to-air, very short-range missile system.
I do not need to remind hon. Members of the advantage that Starstreak's laser-guided, high-velocity missile system holds over infra-red systems—it is effective in typical battle-scene scenarios where there is clutter such as smoke, tree obstructions or heat sources. Starstreak has been designed to be immune to countermeasures, including jamming, flares, chaff or electronic devices. Its high velocity enables engagement times to be short.
Air-to-air Starstreak can take full advantage of the target acquisition range provided by the Apache helicopter's longbow radar and target acquisition and designation system—TADS. As it is not a fire-and-forget infra-red system, there is also a reduced risk of mistakes such as friendly fire, as the missile can be destroyed or steered away from the target following launch if the target is found not to be hostile.
The possible alternative to Starstreak—the United States' Hughes Stinger infra-red system—has been declared ineffective in the air-to-air role, whereas Starstreak had, by the end of last year, successfully completed phase one of a joint US-UK evaluation, with six Starstreak missiles successfully fired from the helicopter in the hover and forward flight positions.
Phase two, encompassing the integration of Starstreak's laser beam guidance system with the Apache's TADS and full integration with the programme, together with the recent selection of the Apache by the Ministry of Defence, could pave the way for joint missile procurement and inter-operability of common US-UK equipment. Between the US and the UK, we are talking about some 900 helicopters.
I come now to my point about the Ministry of Defence. Quite simply, it is not punchy enough; it is not positive in promoting this country's defence industry in the face of very aggressive opposition. Potentially, Starstreak is a huge winner and it could be ready for service within two to three years in its air-to-air role, yet the United States finds the MOD ambivalent and without enthusiasm on the issue of whether we are committed to our own system. There is a huge Stinger lobby in the US. It is therefore essential that Starstreak receives full UK support. The current perception in the US is that the MOD is not firm enough in its support for Starstreak and is simply waiting for the US to pay for and make the selection decision. That can only assist the Stinger lobby.
I encourage the Minister and the Secretary of State, who has just resumed his seat, urgently to address the fact that improvements in the ground-based air defence capability at short range and very short range are required through the introduction of a co-ordinating command and control structure working to individual fire unit level. No such change in the infrastructure of our ground-based air defence has yet occurred. In order to bring significant gains in the efficiency of our air defence assets—I refer

657
specifically to Rapier and Starstreak—the sophistication of co-ordination in command and control needs to match that of other European nations.
The introduction, through technology insertion, of a command and control capability in the short range and very short range air defence systems would provide scope to increase the efficiency of the weapon systems, to allow the most cost-effective weapons mix to be deployed, to provide instantly the recognised air picture and local air picture to the fire units, and to ensure that Britain's air defence capability is compatible with the continuing adoption of such digitisation programmes by other NATO countries.
Finally, I want to touch on the airborne stand-off radar—ASTOR—programme, which is essential to the defence of our nation. Do the Government still regard it as a high priority? I point out to the Minister that, apart from my regional interest in the programme, it incorporates significant national interest. Of the two aircraft platforms proposed for the ASTOR programme, only one—the Bombardier Global Express—has significantly high British content. Shorts design and manufacture more than 25 per cent. of the aircraft in Belfast.
Following the loss of 1,000 jobs due to Fokker's collapse last year, this programme is of major importance to employment at Shorts and other UK companies. Up to 700 jobs in Belfast will depend on Global Express at full production. Other major British suppliers include Lucas Aerospace, Messier-Dowty, Westland and BMW Rolls-Royce, which supply the engines.
Due consideration should be given by the MOD and the Department of Trade and Industry to the high UK work content, in addition to the advantages that the all new design Global Express aircraft offers. Because of its all new design, Global Express offers major advantages to the MOD in that it provides 25 per cent. more cabin space with outstanding capacity for flexibility and development of interior layout. It incorporates the most advanced proven technologies available with superior systems, three times the amount of electrical power, superior performance and low operating costs.
If selected, Shorts would also manufacture components for the modified ASTOR aircraft, thereby providing even more jobs. There would be major export opportunities for Global Express, with more advantages available to the British companies that I have mentioned.
I believe and I hope that the Secretary of State agrees with me—although he is not paying much attention at the moment—that this nation's effective defence depends on our vital defence industry being maintained and given all the support and encouragement that other nations appear only too willing to give their industries.
I shall end as I began: we depend on our young men and women in uniform, but integral to our defence must be a healthy defence industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will pay due attention to that.
8.29 pm
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: In rising to make my first speech, I should like to say something of my constituency. It is particularly relevant that I should
658
make my maiden speech in the annual debate on defence, representing as I do one of the leading defence constituencies in the country.
Called Sudtone in the Domesday book, Plymouth's original harbour is still called Sutton harbour. A developing trade and the shipment of armies to France led to its early growth, and by the 16th century it was flourishing and the home port to many Elizabethan adventurers, including Sir Walter Raleigh, who set off for Virginia from Plymouth, and Sir Francis Drake, who sailed with the English fleet from Plymouth to defend the country against attack from the Spanish armada in 1588.
Sutton harbour is now flourishing on a different basis as home to the fastest growing fish market in Europe. The Hoe, on its southern waterfront, is dominated by the citadel, built by Charles II, and now home to the 29th Commando Regiment, Royal Artillery. The east of my constituency is bounded by the royal dockyard, which was started in the late 17th century and became the focus for the town of Plymouth Dock, renamed Plymouth Devonport in 1824.
As a naval port, Plymouth has played a key role in the defence of the country. Partly as a result of this, during world war two, the city suffered severe bomb damage from air raids. Indeed, it was the most bombed city in England.
At the entrance to Sutton harbour, the walls carry plaques recording the historic voyages that started from Plymouth. They also include many to those who died at sea while fishing or working in the merchant service. Perhaps most famous among the voyagers are the Mayflower pilgrims, who finally set sail from Plymouth in 1620 for the new world. The plaque recording the pilgrim fathers was put up in 1955, but it was only in the early 1980s that the names of the pilgrim mothers—essential, I would have thought, to the new world—were added.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the potential huge movements of people in Europe, and some of the plaques at Sutton harbour mark the departure of some 450,000 people to Australia and New Zealand in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I was fortunate enough to visit Australia during the recess as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. We were able to see at first hand the impact that emigrants from the south-west made in establishing the roots of what is now a flourishing country. The links with Tasmania, as shown in place names, are particularly strong: Devonport, Exeter, Launceston, Staverton, Tamar and Cornwall, to name but a few.
We visited the Australian national war memorial in Canberra, which reminded us of the strong defence links with our Commonwealth allies. I should like to record my thanks to the many Australian members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the staff of the various Parliaments in New South Wales, Canberra and Tasmania, and our own high commission staff. They all contributed to making our visit purposeful and memorable.
The historic landings at Plymouth are less well recorded, with one notable exception. In 1956, Plymouth trade unionists put a plaque on the harbour wall to mark the homecoming of four of the Tolpuddle martyrs who landed back in Plymouth in March 1838, having survived their exile in Australia.

659
Our waterfront has rich associations that have earned the city the titles of cradle of the Commonwealth and springboard for the new world. There are indeed some 40 places in the world that take their name from Plymouth. We are working to celebrate that millennial heritage in the regeneration of our waterfront. "The Shell Guide to Britain" refers to our waterfront as one of the premier waterfronts in the world.
The Mayflower steps, on the other hand, marking where the pilgrims left from, have been called the most underdeveloped heritage site in the country. We have much to do, and I hope to play a leading part in ensuring that the citizens and visitors of the next millennium know the role that the city of Plymouth played in defence in worldwide terms during the millennium.
Many famous men have been associated with Plymouth—explorers, adventurers, discoverers and scientists. Plymouth has also had some remarkable, courageous and dedicated women. They include several scientists, nurses and doctors. Dr. Mary Parke made her contribution in the 1940s to marine science, working in Plymouth's Marine Biological Association, a forerunner of our world-famous Plymouth marine laboratory, which now employs 200 people in my constituency.
Plymouth's medical women played a significant role in the services. Eight of them, trained under pioneer nurse Priscilla Sellon, worked with Florence Nightingale in the Crimea, and pioneer woman surgeon Dr. Mabel Ramsey worked on the battlefields in the first world war.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement to extend the scope for women to be involved in our armed forces, as will many of my female constituents who serve in them.
Equally, Plymouth has a unique record in the representation of women in Parliament. There are many pictures in the corridors of the House that feature Lady Astor and mark her role as the first woman to take her seat, in 1919, representing the constituency of Plymouth, Sutton. Her maiden speech was made in a debate on one of her favourite campaigning issues, which she referred to as the "vexed question of drink". I think that she would have approved of the steps announced before the recess to control the sale of alcopops. She stood up for equal rights for women in the civil service, and I suspect that she would have been the first to castigate the former Minister for the Armed Forces and the present shadow Secretary of State for their somewhat lukewarm remarks on my right hon. Friend's decisions about the scope for women in the armed forces.
Lady Astor wanted to raise the school leaving age to 16 to reduce unemployment, and she made clear her annoyance at the lack of interest shown in social reform. Indeed, she would feel at home with much of the programme set out by new Labour, as we move to raise standards in education and to recognise the essential links that this has with sustaining employment in today's world. I think that she would also have been angry to know, at the end of the 20th century, that the constituency—on the 1995 index of local conditions—includes St. Peter's as the poorest ward in England.
Lady Astor was the first of an almost unbroken succession of women politicians to represent the city of Plymouth, which must be unique to our city. In the Labour landslide election of 1945, Lucy Middleton was elected the first Labour woman to represent the seat. In the
660
aftermath of war, international co-operation and the role of food aid in achieving this was the subject of her maiden speech.
In 1955, Dame Joan Vickers was elected to the neighbouring seat of Plymouth, Devonport, and was the first woman to represent a dockyard constituency. Dame Joan lost her seat in 1974, the same year that a former Deputy Speaker, Dame Janet Fookes, now Baroness Fookes, became the Member for Plymouth, Drake, which she represented until this year.
The new Plymouth, Sutton is the successor seat to Plymouth, Drake. Baroness Fookes campaigned successfully for an Act to stop kerb crawling in 1995, and concluded her long service in Parliament, in this House, as Deputy Speaker, commanding the respect of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
As the fifth woman representing the city, and following such a distinguished line of women Members, I am proud to be the city's first Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. I shall be active in seeking co-operative solutions to the many challenges that we face locally and nationally, working alongside my 24 Labour and Co-operative colleagues on Government Benches.
I am also mindful that there is still much to be done to secure the proper representation of women in the House. There still have not been many more than 200 women Members since Lady Astor took her seat in 1919. In the same time, there have been more than 4,000 male Members of Parliament. I look forward to working with all hon. Members, particularly the 117 other women, to sustain the momentum that we achieved at the 1997 election.
Despite recent reductions, unemployment in the city of Plymouth continues to be alarmingly high. We have suffered from the decline of employment of our traditional industry in the dockyard. Indeed, it has been nearly decimated. The emphasis given by the Government on equipping people for work through their "new deal" programme is welcome, as are measures on education standards to help our citizens to compete in the global economy. Along with my colleagues on the city council, in the partnerships that they have forged with people in business and in the community, I shall work hard to ensure that we respond enthusiastically to those measures.
However, given that there are 11 people unemployed for every job vacancy in Plymouth in recent times, something must be done to ensure that the job market improves. There has been much anger about the destruction of key parts of our defence, particularly the naval industrial base. Skilled teams of workers have been cast wantonly to the inefficient vagaries of the unfettered free market. The country invested time, skill and money in training people who are now under-using their skills, or are not able to use them at all.
It is nearly 30 years since the United Nations identified more than 40 ways in which military engineering and technological skills could be used for civilian industrial research and development—particularly in one of the world's future growth industries, environmental technology. At long last we are taking that seriously.
We look forward to a major conference on defence diversification in Bristol next week. I also welcome the announcement that a Green Paper on our plans for defence diversification—as promised in our manifesto—will be published in the autumn. We must fight for opportunities

661
to maximise those valuable industrial skills and knowledge, and I hope that we will pay particular attention to the role that green technology can play in the process of diversification.
Although we need to diversify our economy, the defence industry will remain a central part of it. At last we have a strategic defence review based on the foreign policy needs of our country, and the outcome of that review must ensure that we have the right sea, air and land capabilities to defend our economic and trading interests, as well as capabilities that enable us to be an effective ally with our partners in the global arena. Our defence and peacekeeping capabilities require the utmost in skills and discipline: they are something in which our country can and should take great pride. The city of Plymouth certainly does, and our contribution is still significant, despite the cuts to which I referred earlier.
From the 29th Commando Regiment, Royal Artillery at the citadel to 3 Commando Brigade, Royal Marines in Stonehouse barracks; from the MOD workers who work in support of the Navy and the dockyard workers at Devonport royal dockyard; from British Aerospace workers to the men and women of the Territorial Army based at Millbay who serve under the 4th Battalion the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment—in the south-west region, of which we like to think of Plymouth as being the capital, some 16,000 men and women earn their living, and spend their working lives in the service of us all. They deserve a review that acknowledges the importance of the vital role that they play.
I stress the importance to Plymouth of the royal naval dockyard. Despite its virtual decimation, it is an industry in which the workers and the city still take great pride. Again and again, Devonport Management Ltd. and its workers have been able to report completion of work ahead of schedule. In recent months, the efficiency of the docking and essential defects programme on the type 23 frigate HMS Montrose resulted in its being undocked four days ahead of schedule.
The three-year programme of refit work on the nuclear submarine HMS Tireless is well ahead, and the team expects to flood her up four weeks early in 1998. The quality of the royal dockyard work is also high: the DML team responsible for the recent refit work on HMS Turbulent has been praised by both the MOD and the boat's commander for the quality of its work.
An adequate quantity of surface fleet work is of vital importance to maintaining the viability of the dockyard work force that will be responsible for the maintenance of the Trident fleet. The company and the work force hope that they will win the contract for type 23 frigate HMS Argyll, which is due for refit in May 1998. There are serious fears that failure to secure the bid may affect the permanent work force at Devonport dockyard. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will treat all bids fairly, and will consider value for money and the future strategic value of Devonport dockyard when examining bids.
The £339 million operation to create the world's best facilities to refit and refuel Britain's nuclear submarines is now well under way. It is an alliance of six international companies that are committed to building the engineering
662
base for submarine work into the millennium and beyond—DML, Brown and Root, Rolls-Royce, Strachan and Henshaw, the Babtie Group and BNFL.
Each of the Vanguard fleet of four submarines—Victorious, Vigilance, Vengeance and Vanguard itself—has 44 miles of pipework and 300 miles of cabling. Each boat will need skilled refuelling and refitting, which will be Plymouth royal dockyard's critical future contribution to maintaining a British minimum deterrent into the next millennium. The skills required to do that work are of the highest order, and I know that they will not be found wanting among the work force of the royal dockyard.
Cradle of the Commonwealth, springboard for the new world, defender of the peace in the next millennium—the city of Plymouth has a proud heritage, and a challenging future. As I join my neighbouring colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in representing the city of Plymouth, I look forward to rising to my part in meeting that challenge.
After many years, our party has been given the trust and responsibility of government. The people of Plymouth lent us their trust on 1 May 1997, and I aim to play my part in retaining that trust. I commend my constituency's honourable track record in the defence of the country throughout the past millennium, and I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take full account of it as he carries out his serious responsibilities in the conduct of our strategic defence review.
8.46 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). I congratulate her on her maiden speech, and on her obvious commitment to her constituency and her work here. I thank her for her kind remarks about her predecessor, who, I think, was popular throughout the House.
It is, perhaps, sobering to think that, if it was in the hon. Lady's constituency that the fleet was launched to deal with the armada, it was just north of the coastline of my constituency that the Royal Navy was humiliated a century later, when one of the bravest fleets that we have ever sent went to fight the Dutch in rotting warships almost without ammunition. Reference has been made to an article opposing the Eurofighter; we should think about how nearly we experienced a repetition of that half a century ago, when, in the skies above Kent and Essex, our gallant pilots flew the Spitfires and Hurricanes that they had received, with barely days to spare in the case of some squadrons.
I share the concern that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) expressed about the £170 million that has been removed from the defence budget. The Secretary of State has assured us that it is just an accounting change resulting from an overspend in the previous year, but, be that as it may, many Conservative Members will watch carefully what happens to the defence budget.
I want briefly to consider the nature of the threat that we may be facing, and then suggest a method by which we could secure substantially more value for money from our armed forces, splendid as they are. Arguably, the three most serious contests in which we have been involved

663
since 1945 are the Korean war, the Falklands war and the Gulf war. They have a number of characteristics in common. First, they all blew up at extremely short notice, with no proper warning. Secondly, each of them breached the defence planning assumptions of the time. Thirdly, in the case of Korea, conscription was available and, indeed, in use; and, in the case of the two subsequent conflicts, we were able to cannibalise the substantial slack in the system that existed because of the commitment to cold war regular forces, which have been substantially reduced since. Finally, each of those wars involved substantial-scale deployment of forces in high-intensity conflict.
The feeling in Foreign Office circles, in academic circles and even in some defence circles seems to be that we will have considerable warning of the next conflict in which we get involved. It has even been suggested by some of the people whose names appear on the list of participants at the various seminars that the Ministry of Defence is holding that we shall have a choice as to whether we participate and on what scale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) outlined some chilling scenarios. The idea that we would have a choice as to whether to participate if there were a substantial nuclear or high-intensity conventional threat either in the Gulf area, where most of the world's oil comes from, or in parts of the middle east and north Africa, which are much closer to western Europe, is completely wrong. We would have no choice: we would have to participate, because of our vital interests. We would need highly capable, large-scale and sustainable armed forces.
How can we square the circle? As hon. Members have acknowledged, our spending, like that of most of our allies, is much smaller than it used to be. How do we maintain a wide range of capabilities within a necessarily constrained defence budget, even if some of us would like it to be a little larger? Most other countries take one of two routes: either they have conscription, which France is now rightly moving away from, or, as in almost every other country in the developed world, they make much greater use of reserves. In the case of ground forces, reserves are typically one fifth of the cost of their regular counterparts.
Let me give the example of land forces. I am conscious of the fact that a distinguished ex-volunteer, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), is sitting in front of me, and a former territorial officer, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), and a serving territorial officer, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), are sitting next to me. In America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the reserve army is roughly the same size as the regular army. Britain's reserve forces are less than half the size of their regular counterparts. The combined populations of Australia and New Zealand are barely a third of ours, but they can raise almost as many reserve infantry as we can.
I have a splendid Territorial Army infantry unit headquarters in my constituency: the 5th Battalion of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment. It took a full-strength battalion to camp: in fact, it had more than one camp this year. It is unbelievable that anyone could even contemplate cutting our reserve forces, particularly our reserve infantry, even further.
664
We should also consider our air forces. Most of us want to be able to afford the expensive aeroplanes that we need. In America, a third of all strategic airlift capability—this subject has come up several times in the debate—two thirds of all tactical airlift capability and 100 per cent. of the strategic interceptor force are manned by volunteers. Britain is full of flying organisations, from the airlines at the top end of the spectrum to the organisations that service North sea oil rigs. We are just beginning to toy with the idea of having a few individual air volunteer reservists as flying crew on modern jets. The experience in America is that there is better value for money and lower wastage if people are in formed units rather than in pools. That applies even more strongly to the army. High-calibre people do not want to be part of a manpower pool: they do not want to be trained in individual skills, but they want to be part of a unit that trains as a unit or as part of a larger formation.
When we compare Britain, which tries to run a set-up that is four-fifths regular, with other English-speaking countries that make much greater use of reserves, we realise why we are so desperately short of money for equipment. There is something faintly funny about the fact that civilians who join volunteer forces as children of their own era and who are used to dealing with high technology are often presented with military technology that is a generation older than the technology with which they are familiar in civilian life. They are all too often told by patronising voices from the Ministry of Defence that the technology is too complicated for reservists to use.
The Americans sent 90,000 volunteer reservists to the Gulf. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) wants to enlighten us. He does not want to say anything. Fair enough.
The Americans sent 90,000 volunteer reservists to the Gulf. They included an artillery brigade, tank battalions from their marine reserves and air guard fighter squadrons. They are currently sending reserve units through Bosnia, including air guard and national guard units. Britain has sent many hundreds of volunteer reservists: at one point, they were 10 per cent. of the force. A regular commanding officer quoted by Field Marshal Lord Bramall said:
"Thank goodness for the Territorial Army! … Without wishing to appear melodramatic, the … Territorial Army soldiers who arrived before Christmas saved the REME bacon … To a man, they are enthusiastic"—
Perhaps he should have said "woman" as well, because there are a number of women in our force in Bosnia—
"they are enthusiastic, cheerful and willing."
We hear from the press and through direct contacts that our volunteer reserves in active service frequently spend months either with the wrong pay or even no pay in one or two cases. There have been muddles over their documentation, there has been a failure to liaise properly with their employers, and they often have family problems that are much more easily solved in the regular forces where we have our married quarter patches. Mobilisation should be organised by reservists, because they are familiar with the problems of people who have a full-time civilian as well as a military job.
That brings me to a wider point. The successful and imaginative use of reserves—finding new jobs that reservists could do at less expense than their regular

665
counterparts—requires a set-up that goes with the grain of the civilian world and brings in the volunteer spirit. It is like the difference between the BBC, a public service of which we are extremely proud, and my favourite commercial radio station, Classic FM. They have a different ethos: Classic FM would not be the organisation it is if all its senior producers were provided by the BBC.
Alone among English-speaking countries, Britain has insisted that every general since 1945 with reservist responsibilities should be a regular who is parachuted into the job. I shall quote from a debate that took place in the House 90 years ago. Sir Charles Dilke quoted a letter in The Times from a colleague who said:
"The War Office has always hated the Volunteers and sneered at them and despised them. That prejudice is still as strong as ever".
Sir Charles went on:
"The language used is, perhaps, too highly coloured, but the fact is that the Regular soldier has never understood the Volunteer, and it is accordingly urged that steps should be taken to prevent the Volunteer from being put under the Regular Army, bound hand and foot."
We have recently done that with the "one Army" concept.
"I think the Volunteers ought to be represented on the Army Council itself."—[Official Report, 9 April 1907; Vol. 172, c. 115.]
Coincidentally, 90 years later Congress is debating a measure to put the head of the national guard on the chiefs of staff. The Senate has already passed the measure. I do not propose that we should put the head of the Territorial Army on to the chiefs of staff, but Australia, which has only 17 million people, has three part-time generals. It is ridiculous that Britain does not even have one. As an Australian paper recently stated, a country cannot expect to retain good-quality officers in the reserve forces if they have no opportunity to occupy senior positions. There has been a small step with the appointment next month of the first ever volunteer reservist as director of reservists. However, the appointment is at only one-star level.
America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have reserve forces wastage rates of about 20 per cent. Our wastage rate is one half higher than that at about 30 per cent. Some of the initiatives in those countries go with the grain of civilian life. They have long officer courses that are tailored to university vacations. In Canada and Australia, reports are prepared for employers on the value of volunteer service to individual soldiers. Family support operations have been established in the national guard in many southern states, run by volunteers and not state funded.
Britain can do great things with its reserve forces. In the second world war, two of the three battalions that held Calais when the British Army was in terrible straits at Dunkirk were TA battalions. In a recent Swiss commando raid competition the 10 Para teams finished top worldwide of all the non-Swiss reserve teams, beating three of the four regular teams. We can do it and elements of the TA are showing what can be done now. If in an uncertain world with an uncertain threat Ministers wish to make our limited defence resources go further, they must begin to take advice from senior reservists rather than just from people inside the white building about imaginative ways in which volunteer reserve units can be given a greater role in all three services.
9 pm
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate and to make my maiden speech.
The armed services and the defence industry have long associations with my constituents, particularly those in the Medway towns and in the Royal British Legion village in Aylesford. The new seat of Chatham and Aylesford is drawn from the old Mid-Kent and Tonbridge and Malling constituencies. It encapsulates much of the rich variety that characterises Kent. The seat contains both urban and rural areas and important industries that have grown up around the River Medway.
My two predecessors are highly regarded hon. Members, and both have deserved reputations as hard-working constituency Members. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) is a distinguished former Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He and I joined forces in a battle to seek noise mitigation measures for our constituents who live alongside the M20. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is my former Member of Parliament. He is independently minded, and we share an interest in the welfare of young people and in opportunities for them, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. An example of the hon. Gentleman's interest in young people became apparent to me recently, because when I was going through some old papers I discovered a letter from him wishing me a happy 18th birthday. Furthermore, in the letter he invited me to meet him at the Conservative club in Medway for coffee. The meeting was to be held in the Thatcher room. I politely declined his offer.
The royal dockyard in Chatham has long been at the heart of the Medway towns. Its closure in 1984 is well recorded and it is a credit to the local people that despite the inevitable pain that the closure caused, the dockyard has not died, but has been transformed. Part of it is now a thriving business community with new housing and leisure facilities, and the oldest part is an 80-acre historic dockyard. It is a popular, award-winning tourist attraction drawing more than 100,000 visitors a year. We were delighted to be visited recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. During his visit, he announced a much needed £16 million cash injection from the national lottery and other sources.
Much of the excellent work that has led to the rebirth of the historic dockyard is attributable to the hard work of Admiral of the Fleet, Sir William Staveley, the chairman of the historic dockyard. Tragically, he died just a couple of weeks ago. Sir William was the flag officer at Medway from 1959 to 1961, and had a distinguished military career, which culminated in 1985 in his appointment as First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff. I had the pleasure and honour to spend a morning and have lunch with him shortly after the visit by my right hon. Friend. His enthusiasm, energy and commitment were always evident.
We have lost a great champion, a man of great stature and vision, but it is perhaps some comfort to know that he secured for the historic dockyard the future for which he had fought so hard before his sudden and untimely death. He was a man of great stature, and I am sure that the House would wish to join me in expressing heartfelt condolences to his widow, Lady Staveley, and their children.

667
Within this debate, we rightly acknowledge and pay tribute to the women and men of our armed services. Having a brother who served in the Blues and Royals Regiment for 18 years, I know the commitment and professionalism that they bring to their jobs, but it is also right to acknowledge the efforts of civilian staff who support our soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots. I wish to use the opportunity of my maiden speech to draw attention to the Chatham dockyard workers who worked on nuclear submarines between 1966 and 1983.
Thousands of jobs were secured in 1965, when the Government announced that Chatham dockyard would become a nuclear refit centre. In 1966, the Chatham Observer, the local paper, quoted dockyard managers as saying that two watchwords would govern the way in which the dockyard was run: safety and absolute care. They said that workers who came into contact with radiation would be checked and rechecked. As is usual practice, the MOD put in place a series of controls and checks to monitor radiation dose exposure and to ensure that exposure of the civilian work force was as low as reasonably practical.
The civilian work force at Chatham dockyard were all fit young men. Indeed, they had to have medicals to prove the case before they were given the go-ahead to work on the nuclear submarines. They were the cream of Medway, as the current mayor of Rochester described them. As the widow of one of the former workers and as an experienced nurse, she is well placed to make such an assessment.
It is estimated that between 2,000 and 3,000 men worked on the submarines between 1966 and 1983. In 1990, some six years after the dockyard was closed, there was growing concern in the Medway towns about the number of former dockyard workers who had contracted one type of cancer or another. Those men were frequently in their 30s and 40s and many had young families.
A campaign then ensued, primarily to persuade the MOD to carry out its duty of care and to provide annual medical checks to any former dockyard worker, as take place for other workers in the nuclear industry. At the head of the campaign was a former dockyard worker, Tim Robson, the late husband of Rochester's mayor, Linda Robson, to whom I referred. Having served his apprenticeship in the dockyard as a boilermaker in the 1970s, he, like many young men, took advantage of the extra pay on offer in the dockyard to work on the nuclear submarines. In the dockyard, two different types of workers were permitted to work on the submarines: classified workers, the mainstay of the operation, and the approved or written scheme workers, who were drafted in for extra help.
A year after he started the campaign to help his fellow dockyard workers, Tim Robson and his family were given the news that he too had cancer—Hodgkin's disease. Despite his illness, he continued his campaign and was overwhelmed with the number of inquiries from ex-workers and their families who were concerned about their health and reporting instances where safety and absolute care were far from being the watchwords.
During its time as a nuclear facility, Chatham was often under pressure. The work on the submarines, to refuel or to decommission them, was frequently behind schedule. What emerged from the campaign was a concern that, because of the pressure, proper monitoring and safety
668
were not always in place. That is well illustrated in the case of David Spriggs, a refitter on a Dreadnought. He was working deep in the heart of a reactor when a pipe burst above his head and drenched him in water. The supervisor reportedly told him to carry on until the end of the shift, when the Geiger counter showed alarming levels of radiation exposure.
Following the accident, which the MOD called a serious incident, David Spriggs was told to take six months off, yet he was back at work within a couple of weeks because of pressure of work at the dockyard. When operations started, guarantees were given that any worker who had contact with radiation would be checked and checked again. As I said earlier, the watchwords were safety and absolute care. In 1995, David Spriggs died of cancer aged 38. His widow requested his dosage records, which should have been kept if he had had a high level of exposure—even though he was only an approved or written scheme worker—so that she might seek compensation under the scheme for radiation-linked diseases. The MOD informed her that no records could be found. Accordingly, David Spriggs must never have been in that reactor.
Despite a two-year battle to retrieve those records, David Spriggs's widow has yet to make any progress and she is now taking the MOD to court. The witnesses asked to appear are likely to come forward to say that they saw David and can testify that he frequently worked in the reactor compartment in nuclear submarines at Chatham dockyard.
A further concern to us in the Medway towns is that the MOD may not have done all that it could to ensure that all available safety systems were in place at Chatham. It failed to install the new safety system, Modex, an American invention, which was introduced in American yards in the 1960s and early 1970s. It was a significant development in dose abatement technology. According to the Defence Committee report of 1990, it reduces the dose burden within the reactor compartment by a factor of four to eight. As has been said, Modex was introduced at Devonport and Rosyth in about 1979, but it was never installed at Chatham.
Tim Robson, by then a leading local councillor, continued the campaign and won the support of Rochester city council in January 1994. The council used its resources to press the MOD to provide annual health checks for former dockyard workers, so that it would be possible for them to detect at the earliest possible stages whether they had a cancer that could be attributed to radiation exposure.
After years of campaigning, a significant step was taken in June this year, when my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Defence launched a local counselling scheme in partnership with Rochester city council. Under that scheme, expert doctors provide advice locally to former workers and their families. Since the scheme was launched, 210 inquiries have been made nationally for dosage records from the MOD, and 94 per cent. of them have come from people who worked at Chatham. That demonstrates the success and importance of a local scheme rather than having to rely on a national one.
On the same day, my hon. Friend announced that the MOD would invest £1 million on improving access to radiation dose records not currently held on computer.

669
We very much hope that that will speed up the system. We in Medway welcome the Government's positive response to the city council's campaign. It has not been easy to take those two important steps, and I pay tribute to the officers of Rochester city council who have made so much extra effort and dedicated so much time to the campaign. Particular praise must be afforded to Mr. Dennis Holmes, the senior lead officer, without whose endeavours we might not have made the progress that we have.
We need more information to obtain a clearer picture of the safety standards applied, to discover whether they were as stringent as they should have been at Chatham dockyard. We in Medway believe that too many young men who worked on the nuclear submarines have died from cancer. They were not average men, but fit young men, the cream of Medway, as I described them earlier. The campaign is by no means over and there are other issues that must be dealt with in the future, such as the accident records. Will they be made available to assist people to make compensation claims? As for the compensation scheme, is it right that a no fault principle should stand if there is clear evidence of error or neglect?
What happens to the information collated from the counselling scheme? How many other people will discover, as did David Spriggs's widow, that records have not been kept? As for medical screening, we believe that annual medical checks are essential. We should also like research to be undertaken into the types of cancers arising from exposure to radiation.
Earlier, I described my constituency of Chatham and Aylesford and, as is the custom during a maiden speech, I paid tribute to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen whom I have succeeded. Technically, however, as I represent a new seat, I have no direct predecessor. There was, however, a previous Labour candidate, my friend and colleague, the ex-dockyard worker, Tim Robson. He was selected at a time when we hoped that his health was improving, such was his determination to enter this House to represent the people of Chatham and Aylesford, in particular Chatham, a place where he had lived all his life and of which he was genuinely proud. Tim died in August 1995 at the age of 39, leaving his wife, now our much respected mayor, and two teenage daughters.
Hon. Members arrive at the House through a variety of circumstances, and as I enjoy the immense honour of representing the people of Chatham and Aylesford, I cannot help recalling that I am here partly through the tragic loss of someone who had a considerable influence on my life and whom I am proud to have known so well. I hope that this maiden speech will be a fitting tribute to Tim Robson's memory and the campaign that he started. He started that campaign, but it is by no means concluded.
9.14 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is always a pleasure to follow a maiden speech, but it is especially so now because the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) has made his mark in a way that will be remembered here and will read well in Chatham, a town that I know quite well, as my father once commanded the dockyard there and I started my career as a retailer in Chatham high street. The town will respect him as its representative here, and I am pleased that he chose this debate in which to make his maiden speech.
670
I congratulate my successor as Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), on his contribution to the debate. Our Committee has a reputation for always reaching unanimous decisions—we have never had to vote on anything—and that was the case in electing him to the chairmanship. I am very pleased that he is in that position; it is a proof that patience is a virtue, but I dare say that, in politics, honesty is not, because if anyone should be sitting on the Front Bench, it is he. I dare say that the Treasury would be less sanguine about some of his comments as a defence spokesman than about those that the Secretary of State is likely to make. My remarks may have finished the hon. Member for Walsall, South for good and all, but there we are.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the amount of blue paper lying on the Table, and it is true that the Committee had a pretty prolific turnout of reports, all of which were constructively critical, which should serve as an example for the work that we shall do in the future. The previous Government listened carefully to what we had to say and, I am glad to say, acted on our advice on many occasions.
The present Government have not reacted as constructively as they might to the report on defence medical services, in which we made it clear that, while we reluctantly recognised the need to reduce the manpower in our armed services by about 30 per cent. since 1989, the defence medical services have been reduced by 40 per cent.
Those services were studied in "Front Line First" rather than in "Options for Change", because they were regarded by the MOD as a support service, which they are not. Their duty is to put field hospitals on the ground, and it became clear in our inquiry that they would be unable to supply the number of hospitals that would be required if our troops were to perform their roles effectively.
In their response, the Government did not grasp the need for better use of reservists, and especially territorials, who have medical and technical expertise because of their work in hospitals, in manning our medical services in the field. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more about that.
Our defence industrial base was considered by the Select Committees on Defence and on Trade and Industry about three years ago. We produced a report on aspects of defence procurement. Since then, little has happened with regard to restructuring the European defence industries. In the meantime, the United States of America has tackled the problem of having 15 prime contractors. That number has been whittled down to only three: Boeing Douglas, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Hughes. Each of those prime contractors is bigger than all the European defence industries put together. If ever there was a need for Europe to get its act together and start restructuring its industry, it is now.
The Western European Union is beginning to address the problem of reorganising the European defence industrial base. It is useful for the WEU to fulfil that role rather than trying to imitate NATO. The problem is that in Britain, we have addressed the problems of denationalising our industries while the Europeans have not. Until France and Germany tackle privatisation, the cross-frontier mergers that ought to take place will not happen. We shall be at a competitive disadvantage to the

671
Americans. That said, I remind the House of the importance of the two-way street of defence-related trade between Britain and the United States. We do the lion's share of defence trade with the United States. I am glad to say that the two-way street is now only 2:1 in favour of the United States; it was about 10:1 before the Conservative Government came to power. The ratio has improved, but it could be improved further. Even if we restructure the European defence industrial base, we must not lock ourselves into a fortress Europe.
Lastly, I want pick up on the Defence Committee report on defence spending, which was the last one that we did. I remind the Government of the concluding sentence of our final recommendations. The Minister probably knows it by heart, but it is worth putting on record. The Committee said:
"We insist that the defence spending plans set out in the 1996 budget must at least be maintained in real terms in future years. Any further reduction would jeopardise the defence of the realm."
That is the view of this House.
9.21 pm
Mr. John Hutton: I congratulate the two hon. Members who have made maiden speeches. My constituency has a naturally close affinity with those of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw); it manufactured the Trident submarines on which the economic prosperity of the Plymouth, Sutton constituency largely depends and the nuclear submarines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. We have a special affinity to him and the difficulties that his constituents are experiencing.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his excellent speech and particularly on the emphasis that he placed on strong defence forces in future. The Government have made an auspicious start, with action on land mines, the recruitment of more women and ethnic minorities to the armed forces, a new deal for Gulf war veterans and the launch of a long overdue strategic defence review.
I am particularly encouraged by my right hon. Friend's reference to the expected Green Paper on defence diversification. We must find ways to end the haemorrhaging of vital industrial skills caused by previous defence spending reductions. That will be no easy task because there are no simple solutions. The Government cannot create the new jobs—only companies can—but they can help with support and advice. We need to learn the lessons of the experiences of other countries such as Germany and the United States. The Government have a special moral responsibility to help with the process because they are often the only customer of defence contractors. If an agency is to be established, I would like it to be set up in Barrow—the most defence-dependent constituency in the United Kingdom. I look forward to reading the details of the Green Paper in the near future.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the international security and defence environment has changed radically and fundamentally since the end of the cold war. The threat of all-out nuclear confrontation has receded; in its place has come uncertainty about the possible nature and location of future armed conflicts.
One thing is clear: the end of the cold war has not brought about an end to armed conflict. It could be argued that the exact opposite has happened. We cannot afford to
672
be naive about the new post cold war environment; the world remains a dangerous place. It is also clear after the tragedy in Bosnia that individual states and the international community, acting through the United Nations, may well be called upon to intervene in future conflicts on humanitarian grounds and to attempt to restore peace and stability. That will have important consequences and implications for us as we prepare the new ground rules for British defence policy into the next century and it is why the strategic defence review is so necessary and timely.
I hope that the review will lay the foundations for a new national consensus about defence and security policy built on our firm support for the United Nations and the principle of collective security, acting through both NATO and the general mandate of the Security Council. The Government are entirely right to make Trident the cornerstone of that new security architecture.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 3 July at one of the two strategic defence review seminars. He said:
"you cannot have an ethical foreign policy if it is an isolationist foreign policy. That is partly why, in rejecting isolationism, we commit Britain to building a strong international community. If we take the view that the principles of the UN Charter are a matter of common concern, we cannot stand back when those principles are being violated."
The obvious conclusion, and one that I know from his comments my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shares, is that Britain needs strong, highly mobile and flexible armed forces, clearly focused on meeting the new security challenges that lie ahead and equipped with the best in modern armaments.
An ethical and internationalist foreign, and therefore defence, policy must mean that, after the defence of the United Kingdom and our NATO allies is taken into account, an increasing priority will have to be placed on Britain's capacity to take part in allied expeditionary operations in trouble spots that potentially threaten either international or regional peace and security. This will have important implications for our defence procurement programme, about which I want to say a few words later, but first I wish to make one thing clear.
I am not arguing for a return to gunboat diplomacy, nor do I have a yearning for any sense of imperial grandeur—far from it. We cannot act as the world's policeman and we should not try to do so. I am talking of Britain, with the international community, assuming a responsibility to promote peace, to uphold international law and human rights and to maintain international stability. We have a unique opportunity to contribute to that process because of the excellence and experience of our armed forces. By an expeditionary capability I simply mean the ability to move forces promptly and safely from the United Kingdom to a distant operational theatre, via a secured route, with effective support and with the ability to perform a safe withdrawal.
Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hutton: No; I do not have not much time.
The Royal Navy will have a central role in ensuring that British forces can be deployed safely around the world. It is vital to retain and develop the Navy's amphibious capability. The new assault landing ships HMS Bulwark

673
and HMS Albion, the new helicopter carrier HMS Ocean and the nuclear submarines, which we can deploy over a long range and which provide effective anti-submarine warfare capability, will be crucial in this project. All those vessels are being built in my constituency.
In short, as Sir Benjamin Bathurst wrote in 1995, the aim of maritime power is
"to place world wide operational options in the hand of the government".
Those options can then be used in support of international security, peacekeeping, combating international crime and supporting humanitarian operations.
If we are to retain an effective amphibious capability, we will need to develop a replacement programme for the Invincible class aircraft carriers. Invincible was built in my constituency and launched 20 years ago; Illustrious and Ark Royal are respectively 18 months and four years her junior. Key decisions will have to be taken some time during this Parliament if we are to bring any new vessels into operation by around 2012. Carriers are flexible platforms that can provide a mix of aircraft for specific tasks, including air cover for amphibious landings. We will not always be able to rely on mounting these operations from land bases and HMS Ocean will not be able to perform those vital tasks on her own—nor was she designed to do so.
Some difficult decisions will have to be made about the future carrier replacement programme. Above all, there is the question of affordability: significant capital outlay will be required both for the vessels—perhaps two or three of them—and for the aircraft. Carriers are expensive, but their military potential has never been in doubt. The choice we have to make will be strategic, not operational. I therefore hope that the issue will be addressed in the strategic defence review and that the review will make out the case in favour of the new carriers. At the very least, I hope that the options will be kept open so that design and planning work can continue.
In the brief time available to me, I want to make one or two remarks about the Government's procurement policy. Previous Governments have been rightly criticised for delays in key procurement decisions and for lack of effective consultation with the defence industry, which have led to confusion and unnecessary job losses. It is important that the new Government should avoid making those mistakes. I welcome the Government's smart procurement initiative, which is designed to eliminate cost overruns and delays in equipment programmes. We need to develop a closer dialogue with the defence industry and regularly to discuss future procurement requirements on a long-term basis. I want the Government to identify strategic partners in key areas of weapons and platform procurement and to work with those commercial partners to develop and deliver the equipment our forces want to an agreed timetable and price. There are huge benefits in such an approach, including continuity, expertise and stability.
In some areas, it is unrealistic to expect competition between rival companies to be the best guarantor of value for money. The defence industry reconstruction in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in the emergence of many single-source suppliers and that is especially true in the case of large ship construction—Vickers Shipbuilding and
674
Engineering Ltd. in my constituency is the only shipbuilder left in the UK capable of building the Navy's larger vessels. We should avoid artificial competition exercises. We should be prepared to use the NAPNOC—no acceptable price, no contract—procedures more frequently, because they can deliver good equipment at affordable prices, as was demonstrated by the landing platform dock replacement programme.
In 1946, Adlai Stevenson said that
"making peace is harder than making war"
and he was probably right, but it is because of the contribution we can make to improving the international security environment that Britain cannot afford to be a spectator in world events. We can be a positive force for peace, human rights and democracy, but none of those things comes cheaply. If we are to play that positive role, we will need highly professional, well-equipped and well-resourced armed forces. That is a simple fact of life. I have absolute confidence in the Government's stance on these matters and that in the years ahead Britain will continue to play an active part in maintaining international peace and security.
9.32 pm
Sir David Madel: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) on her excellent maiden speech. We especially noted her warm tributes to all her women predecessors in that constituency. The hon. Lady rightly also paid tribute to Plymouth's contribution to industry and to the defence of this country. We look forward to hearing her many times in the future.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). I noted his remarks about restoring industry because there was no more work in the dockyard—a casualty of defence policy. We in Bedfordshire have the same industrial difficulties because an order for civilian lorries for Libya was vetoed by the Foreign Office. I therefore felt an immediate accord with the hon. Gentleman when he referred to the problems in his constituency. Hon. Members also paid special attention to his remarks about safety at work and we look forward to hearing from him again in future, especially on that topic.
The Government have announced that they are considering a suitable memorial for the many people who have lost their lives as a result of the tragedy in Northern Ireland. That is perfectly relevant and I am grateful to the Government for saying that they welcome all views as to the nature of the memorial, but as remembrance Sunday draws near, we are also approaching the 50th anniversary of action taken by our service men and our allies to stop the cold war becoming a full-scale hot war.
Next June will be the 50th anniversary of the start of the Berlin airlift. That was one of the greatest humanitarian relief efforts ever undertaken, in support of 2.1 million people whom the late unlamented Joseph Stalin was trying to starve to death. Of course there was a price for that action. Thirty-nine British aircrew, 31 Americans and eight Germans were killed during the airlift, which lasted from June 1948 to October 1949. Their names are inscribed on the memorial at Tempelhof airfield in Berlin but, according to the imperial war museum, there is no memorial in the United Kingdom to the British service men killed in the Berlin airlift. As we are approaching the

675
50th anniversary of what happened there, I hope that the Government will give thought and consideration to what should be done.
A mere two years later, in 2000, we shall remember the stand that we took in Korea and the number of British service men who lost their lives there—again stopping the cold war blazing into a full-scale hot war.
I shall say a word about the latest position on pay for the armed services. The Government will know that, in February 1997, we were introducing a new service personnel strategy, one of the main elements of which was a movement towards a system of pay bands. We were going to bring the armed forces' pay into line with pay practices in the civil service. We obviously want to know, as the Opposition, whether the Government are continuing with that.
I am aware that the Government have undertaken to implement in full the second stage of the 1997 pay award on 1 December. We all know that the Chancellor has made some austere statements about public pay, but I want an assurance that the Government will continue the work on the implementation of the new personnel strategy and that personnel and pay policies are not an object of fresh study in the strategic defence review.
I understand that some Territorial Army service men, especially those who have served in Bosnia, are receiving their pay three months late. We all know, do we not, the grim reminder on an income tax return that late payment of income tax can attract interest. If the Government cannot get that matter sorted out quickly, they might like to find out whether there may be a temporary adjustment of tax codes for these people, who have served in Bosnia and elsewhere, who would have been paid three months ago, but who have not been because of administrative difficulties. I should like the Government to say something about that, either today, when the Minister replies, or in the debate tomorrow.
It has emerged clearly from the debate that there must be no suggestion of cutting Territorial Army training. TA training levels must recognise the practical need to maintain continuity, credibility and interest against the many other distractions that motivated young people might take up at weekends or at other times. The Government will be aware, as we are, that the TA state of readiness has been reduced from R5 to R8. Now that that has happened, I hope that the Government can assure us that they will not cut training or turn away potential recruits to the TA.
Certain provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 must be implemented this year or early next year. What is the position concerning the compensation that employers receive when employees go on TA duties? As I understand it, negotiations are in mid-stream. It would help our debate if the Government would bring us up to date on the progress of those negotiations.
I should like to say a word about the anti-personnel mines campaign, to which several right hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, referred today. The latter mentioned the Oslo agreement which is to be signed. One such weapon is the delayed action mine, which was dropped in the Gulf war after raids on concrete runways to stop people rushing out to repair the runways afterwards. We all hope that there will never again be a middle east war, but this anti-personnel mine is a purely defensive weapon designed to stop the aggressor rapidly
676
repairing his airfields, from which his aircraft have taken off in aggressive action. We should like to know whether this particular kind of mine, used exclusively on concrete runways, will be covered by the Oslo agreement.
We are all aware of the high costs of certain operational capabilities, such as surveillance, intelligence and target acquisition. At the strategic nuclear level, there is also a long-term need to maintain a strategic balance in Europe—particularly with Russia, where the prospects for further nuclear reductions remain uncertain. The Secretary of State said today that he was looking to the Foreign Office to stake out some general principles that defence policy would follow. I refer to two comments made by the Foreign Secretary in May of this year at the Western European Union ministerial meeting in Paris:
"We think it is right and important to develop the European role in the defence area and for Europeans to take on an increased share of responsibility … We want to encourage the United States to remain fully engaged in Europe. And none of us can afford the wasteful duplication which would be the alternative to building on what we have created and tested in NATO."
I want to compare those remarks with our "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991", which remains as relevant today as it was in 1991. The Conservative Government said:
"The requirement remains for armed forces that are properly manned, supported and well equipped. They should be able to engage in high-intensity conflict; to contribute to multinational formations; to deploy flexibly and rapidly in response to a spectrum of possible risks away from Europe; and they should retain the organisation, skills and military technology to permit a rebuilding of larger military capabilities to meet an increased threat should the need arise."
That statement certainly covered our action in the Gulf. It also made it clear that we would be able to engage in a high-intensity conflict in Bosnia, if necessary, once the United States brought in heavy weapons.
Our view is that if Britain drifts away from that 1991 statement, she will become an unreliable ally; and if that happens the American policy of support and commitment to European security will weaken. There is neither the political nor the economic will in Europe to replace what the United States does for us; and there is no sign that the European countries are anywhere near replacing that American commitment and all that it means.
I thought that the Secretary of State for Defence today sounded more confident and cheerful than he really felt. I believe he is in for an uncomfortable time as these reviews grind on and the Treasury makes itself felt in all the discussions on them. The Secretary of State will also find that Ministers who might have been friendly in the summer are not so friendly now. They are going to behave like a gang of bad Samaritans, passing by on the other side while the Secretary of State looks for help in getting enough money for the defence budget. He need not worry, however: help is to be found on our side of the House. The Opposition will always support a Labour Government if, on matters of defence, they act in the national interest and in concert with our allies to maintain the security of these islands.
9.44 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I hope that I do not stun the House with my first comment. I thank and pay tribute to someone who is not here tonight. I did not always agree with Michael Portillo.

677
Like all of us, he made mistakes and I lost no sleep when he lost his seat—I was in bed and slept soundly. The whole House, however, will wish to recognise the fact that he was committed to his country and made a determined contribution to its defence. It is therefore right to place on record our appreciation for everything that he did while in this House.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I cannot respond in the time available to all the points made tonight. I shall try to return to some of the themes tomorrow. I thank the hon. Member for South—West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who summed up the debate for the Opposition. I shall deal with personnel and pay matters more generally tomorrow. I inquired about the reserves issue at the beginning of this month and was assured that any individual cases that have been brought to light have been dealt with. The primary reason for the backlog was the transfer of pay and personnel issues to a new centre in Glasgow. I blame that on no one, although it did occur before we came to power. We are doing all that we can to deal with it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a monument or memorial. He will be aware that, while I support and encourage that idea, it is the long-standing policy of Governments that money and financial backing for such issues are raised by public subscription rather than Government donation.
Debates of this nature usually produce their range of stars and stalwarts. Tonight, we had one or two stars and I congratulate on behalf of the House my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who made her maiden speech. She spoke with great vigour and obvious commitment about both her present constituents and the history of Plymouth, Sutton. I was particularly interested in her reference to 1838 and the Tolpuddle martyrs. It reminded me that, some years previously, a huge Reform Act was condemned by some Tories as a dangerous act of social and political engineering. Some of tonight's responses to the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about opportunities for women suggested that that was a dangerous act of social engineering, which shows that, at least in some quarters of the Tory party, nothing changes although the years may pass.
I also congratulate another star, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), who made a deeply moving speech regarding workers in his constituency. His deep conviction was felt throughout the House. I thank him for his kind words about the initiatives taken by the Under—Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar). I am sure that he will serve his constituents as well as his predecessors did, and that we shall hear much more from him on this and other subjects.
I shall pass quickly from the stars to the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. I welcome him—an old friend of mine outside this Chamber—to the Dispatch Box this evening. He raised a number of points to which I shall try quickly to respond. The first was the course of NATO enlargement. As he will know, a wide range of figures have been given but they do not all appear to be based on a premise that the Government would accept.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to remember first, that even if no new members were joining, NATO would be going through a process of modernisation; secondly, that
678
rationalisation of the old Warsaw pact structures in some of those countries will require a rundown—for instance, in the number of headquarters—and thirdly, that collective security generally is much cheaper than individual security. Those points should inform our judgment of the extra costs. We are convinced that the costs are manageable, but we shall reserve our comments until we have an informed judgment from NATO when it puts the figures to the Ministers' meeting next month.
As regards the defence budget, the right hon. Gentleman got into a lather about the fine. I shall make a couple of points about that. First, the Government are committed to living within the spending limits agreed by the previous Administration for this year and next. As regards the fine, the defence budget outturn in 1996–97 was £22,046 million—an overspend by the previous Government due to their incompetence, not ours, of £246 million against the cash limit.
It takes a bit of gall for the Government of the day, who overspent by £246 million, to condemn the present Secretary of State first, for spending the money, which he did not, and secondly, for having to pay a £168 million fine.
Sir George Young: Did the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State resist the approach from the Treasury?
Dr. Reid: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot work that out, I shall try to explain, within the limitations placed upon me with regard to divulging discussions. The overspend by his Government was £246 million. After negotiation over a period of time, the Secretary of State did not pay back £246 million; he paid back £168 million. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, I shall give him further advice. One takes £246 million. One throws £168 million in the basket. Whatever is left represents what was achieved during the negotiations. It is entirely the fault and the incompetence of the previous Government—
Mr. Blunt rose—
Dr. Reid: I can do only one simple arithmetic lesson a night. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman tomorrow.
The shadow Secretary of State made an interesting point. Having mustered the combined strength of the Opposition and having decided that it was not sufficient to launch an attack on the Government, he pulled in that well-known pro-defence newspaper which the Tories have supported for many years—The Guardian. Joining forces with The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman complained bitterly that, in the strategic defence review, "equipment had been protected"—that was the quotation.
Only two pieces of equipment have been protected. One is Trident, which I presume the shadow Secretary of State supports, and the other is the Eurofighter. We heard tonight for the first time a shadow Secretary of State abandoning the commitment of the whole House to support the Eurofighter. That will have been noted by thousands of workers throughout the country.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made a substantial contribution, as he always does on these occasions. I suspected that his combining the Foreign Office and Defence portfolios may have been informed by a search for someone who held

679
both portfolios to lead the nation, but I know that he would not have such personal interest at heart. He raised a number of important issues, including Trident.
Let me make our position plain. The retention of Trident is one of the principles on which the strategic defence review is founded. Within that framework, the review will examine all aspects of our deterrence requirements, including nuclear warhead numbers. We have made it clear that we shall deploy only the minimum number of warheads required for credible deterrence in current circumstances on Trident submarines. If the circumstances allow reductions in the size of our capabilities, we shall be prepared to make those reductions while ensuring that we retain an effective deterrent.
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Dr. Reid: I am sorry, but I have only six minutes in which to respond to all the issues raised during the debate. If I catch Madam Speaker's eye tomorrow, I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who may return to the matter then.
I shall deal now with the contribution of that stalwart defender of strong defence for many years, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I congratulate him on his position as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee. I know that, irrespective of his party affiliations, he will pursue robustly the interests of the defence of this country. I know that other hon. Members will want to pay tribute to him also.
My hon. Friend raised several issues, including the joint staff college. Ministers have made their position on that issue quite clear: we do not start from where we would like to be; we start from where we are. Negotiations with defence management about a Shrivenham-based proposal for permanent facilities to be delivered via a private finance initiative are proceeding. It would clearly be inappropriate to comment further while negotiations are on-going. However, I place on record the fact that we are committed conceptually to reaping the immense benefits of working jointly. A joint staff college contributes to that.
Several hon. Members—the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth)—raised the question of the defence medical services. Only a fool would fail to acknowledge the parlous state of our defence medical services. There is a huge inadequacy, and it is one of the legacies with which the Government must deal. All hon. Members would agree that consensus on a framework should not stop our identifying the problems that exist within that framework. That charge is particularly true of the defence medical services. I shall refer to that matter tomorrow, but I make it plain that I did not wait the five years that I was allowed by the Defence Select Committee. Although it is only 15 months since reforms were introduced by the
680
previous Government, I have ordered an urgent re-examination and requested that proposals for early action be sent to me about the matter.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—the ex-Armed Forces Minister who is not present for the winding-up speeches, for understandable reasons—asked about combat effectiveness and the extension of opportunities for women in the armed forces. That matter was discussed with the Chief of the General Staff and other chiefs of staff. Combat effectiveness—which, as hon. Members will know, is defined as a unit or formation's ability to carry out a mission successfully in combat situations—is considered fully whenever we look at any of these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) raised the matter of strategic and heavy lift. Although I obviously do not want to prejudice the conclusions of the strategic defence review, I give away no secrets when I say that that is one of the issues that has informed our discussions in the past three months.
I always listen to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) with respect. He has served his country, and therefore deserves our attention when he speaks. He raised several procurement issues, and I hope that he will not mind if I leave those matters to the Under-Secretary of State to address when he has considered the record.
A defence debate would not be complete without the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I remember past debates when he and I were the only Members in the Chamber. He spoke with great gusto tonight. As I expected, he raised a matter to which he has referred before: reviewing the cases of British soldiers who were executed following courts martial during world war one. He will appreciate that the Government fully understand the widespread concern and the feelings aroused by that issue. I undertook to examine the matter, but I said at the time that I wanted neither to raise expectations nor, by addressing one perceived injustice, to appear to bring other injustices to the surface. It is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue which, given the long passage of time and the extent of the records, is taking time to assess in detail—but it has not been forgotten.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised an issue that he has raised previously in these debates. He is a stalwart advocate of the cause of the Territorial Army. That will be examined in the review—as will every other issue—with rigorous scrutiny. That is what the country and the House expect. There have been suggestions that the Territorial Army will be turned into a leisure brigade. I, like the hon. Gentleman, read the newspapers. I can say only that I am in the business of providing capable and relevant professional and volunteer forces and I am not interested in creating a leisure brigade—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Kent and Sussex Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
10 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the West Kent and East Sussex NHS trust private finance initiative. I am also grateful for the attention of the Minister on this serious matter.
My purpose in calling for this Adjournment debate is to raise the extremely serious position of the future capital funding of the trust. The hospital, which is spread between two sites in my Tunbridge Wells constituency—one in Pembury and one in the centre of Tunbridge Wells—serves the surrounding area of Tonbridge, Sevenoaks, East Sussex and Kent, down to the south coast. Until the PFI review in June, the trust was working with its partners on a substantial proposal for rebuilding the hospital on a single site.
I want to be clear that my purpose tonight is not simply a case of constituency special pleading. Indeed, I do not advocate that we should immediately fund the PFI in Tunbridge Wells; nor is it ready to be funded. Rather, there appears to be an acute need in this case, which may be illustrative of other NHS trusts, for proper forward planning and a better long-term framework to enable the trust management to move forward and plan for the future investment that is urgently needed.
The effect of the cancellation of the PFI proposal is not just to abort any future capital work, but to plunge the whole hospital into a state of relative uncertainty, which obviously has an effect on the morale of clinicians and staff. That problem now needs to be addressed.
The hospital's position is untenable in the long term. The trust delivers a good standard of clinical service, but that is despite, not because of, the state of the facilities, which is extremely poor. We rely on the energy, good will, hard work and dedication of the doctors, nurses and management to overcome the impoverished state of our facilities.
The hospital suffers from being split between two sites, both of which are old and have been developed piecemeal over the years. The first site at Pembury was, ironically, originally built as a workhouse in the 1890s. It consists of long, Florence Nightingale-style wards with 24 to 28 beds, an open-plan format, limited privacy and inadequate medical support facilities. For example, oxygen is not piped into the facilities.
Many of the support and related facilities at Pembury are housed in wooden huts. The operating theatres were designed as a twin operating suite some 30 to 40 years ago. The Pembury site includes all the major radiology facilities as well as obstetrics, paediatrics, gynaecology and care for the elderly. The net result is that, every time a patient needs radiology or similar treatment, he has to be transferred between the two sites.
The Kent and Sussex site is in the heart of a very congested part of Tunbridge Wells. It was built around the site of an old tuberculosis hospital, and has been developed higgledy-piggledy over the years. It is poorly laid out. It contains the main accident and emergency facilities for the entire area and is therefore crucial not just for my constituency, but for the surrounding areas.
682
The effect of the dual site operation is to make the hospital more expensive to run, and also to hinder patient care. One can imagine that transferring patients in poor condition between hospitals, which can take half an hour or so, does not make any sense from a clinical point of view. It is expensive, and it is an unnecessary burden on the staff.
The general standard of the buildings is wholly inadequate for this day and age. On an aerial photograph, it looks like an industrial site. Shed-style buildings, wooden huts and warehouse roofing are simply not an acceptable standard for a modern hospital. Despite this, the staff manage, but it is important to note that there is an estimated £30 million backlog of capital maintenance, which is required to bring the facilities up to what are regarded as acceptable standards today.
Hon. Members will be aware that the capital maintenance allocation is related to turnover, not the state of the buildings. As a result, unless something is done, I fear that the situation at Kent and Sussex can only get worse.
Furthermore, the poor quality of the wards means that the trust is unable to provide patients with the privacy and dignity that they expect today. My constituents continually complain about the inadequate state of the wards and the fact that we have dual-sex wards with no privacy. Tunbridge Wells is—like it or not—the long-term location for accident and emergency and acute facilities. There is no alternative. The nearest hospital, in Maidstone, is far too far away to meet any standards of performance and service delivery on emergency facilities for constituents, particularly those living to the south.
The case for long-term investment, therefore, is very sound by any standards. There is simply no alternative. In my judgment, the PFI proposal should have been allowed to proceed to a state where it could have received mature consideration. It has, however, been turned down, but on technical grounds, not on grounds that can be weighed up as an economic case. In the long term, it will have to be revived.
The PFI was for £65 million to create 400 beds, which compares favourably with other PFIs that have been allowed to proceed. I believe that I am right in saying that the PFI for Dartford was for £120 million to create the same number of beds. The capital efficiency of the proposal was therefore very good. The revenue efficiency is also good, as there would be obvious revenue savings from consolidating a dual site.
Important landholdings would be released as a result of the PFI, because we currently occupy large acreages which are capable of being used for housing, or other uses. The economics of the proposal to rebuild the hospital on a single site is by any standards outstanding.
Why was the PFI turned down? First, it did not meet the criteria, apart from anything else, for readiness—a fact of life, but not a reason, surely, for kicking it into touch indefinitely. Secondly, the service requirement was not sufficiently strongly demonstrated, because the surrounding population are reasonably healthy—but unless we can sustain the quality of service that we have managed in the past, they are unlikely to remain so. The hospital is a centre of excellence today, and deserves our support to remain so. If we are not prepared to invest in it, it will not remain so. Surely the Government's policy for the NHS is not to level down standards but to increase standards everywhere.

683
My fear is that, if a coherent investment plan is not developed, in the future there will be an obvious impact on morale—which there has been already—and a risk that our top physicians will migrate elsewhere. There is a risk that standards of care will deteriorate and it will not be possible to maintain and meet minimum standards of cleanliness, hygiene and clinical care.
There is also a risk to the economics, because, unless we have a plan, the temptation will be to invest in one site or another at the cost of meeting the long-term objectives. In other words, the costs will be wasted, because in the long term we want to consolidate on a single site. Today, it is simply not possible to ignore the deteriorating state of our buildings.
The Minister of State said in July:
"Today the Government is unlocking the PFI gridlock in the NHS".
In June, he said:
"I wanted to be the Minister that got hospitals built, not the Minister that only promised them."
Those are sentiments that I am sure we all share.
I fear, however, that, by selecting certain PFIs to go ahead and kicking the rest into touch, we may have deferred any sensible long-term planning for hospital building, particularly in this case. We have moved out of one gridlock into, potentially, another. Meanwhile, the hospital management are in a Catch-22 situation. They have been told not to invest in further developing the PFI proposal, so that has been shelved, and no more work can be done on developing the right proposal for the future of Tunbridge Wells.
I am also aware that the Minister said in July that it was "not the end of the road"
for the schemes that had been turned down, but it is unclear today what can be done to revive them. According to a letter sent to me on 29 July, it was the intention to
"prioritise all future major acute sector projects according to the key criteria of health service needs."
The point about needs is that it is not just a question of today's needs; it is a question of future needs and future trends. We are talking about a long-term building project, and we are considering not what happens today, but what should happen in five or 10 years' time. The NHS trust needs to know that in order to prioritise what it does with its expected investment now. Currently, it is being left in the dark.
We fully recognise that health service expenditure must be prioritised, and that some schemes must be selected to go ahead. That is not the issue; the issue is what happens to schemes when there is an acute need for redevelopment, but they have been booted into the long grass for the time being.
The Government made a great commitment to the health service in their election manifesto. In the past few years, they have been highly critical of the last Government's record on health, and have made much play of the need to improve facilities and reduce waiting lists—which in Tunbridge Wells, incidentally, are in serious danger of lengthening again this winter; but that is another subject.
Now is the time to reassure hospitals such as the Kent and Sussex about their long-term future. That is really all we are looking for—a plan for the long term. That means
684
not a stop-go on PFI schemes, but a coherent framework in which to plan, and some understanding of how schemes will be run and of the wherewithal to fund them and bring them to a state in which we can advocate them and make a proposal to the Government.
In short, I am asking the Minister to reassure us that he will look favourably on future plans for the redevelopment of the NHS trust, and to ensure that, in the months ahead, the trust is provided with clear guidance on the type of capital expenditure programme that will be allowed to enable single-site relocation in the long term.
In other words, are we to invest in both sites, or can we start concentrating on a single site in the knowledge that in the future a scheme will be supported? I also seek the Minister's reassurance that the NHS trust will be allowed to incur the expenditure necessary in the future to get a proposal into the state in which it can receive his blessing.
I believe that the issue is vital not just to my constituents, but to constituencies in surrounding areas and, I suspect, to other NHS trusts in a similar position. Proposals for redevelopment of the trust have not just my support, but the support of all the surrounding Members of Parliament, the community health council, the area health authority, the ambulance service, patients, local GPs—to many of whom I have spoken—and, of course, the borough and county councils.
Now is the time to provide clear directions for the future of a sensible, and indeed affordable, proposal. We do not want our PFI to be kicked into the long grass and to become stuck in the treacle of bureaucracy; we want firm direction and positive action, in the interests of all concerned.
10.13 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Has there been an agreement?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The Chair should always be informed.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I apologise for that omission, Madam Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on raising this matter, and warmly support what he has said. My constituency abuts his, and the health authority that dominates the constituency pays some £5 million for special services from the hospitals to which he referred. There is clearly considerable collaboration between the health authorities concerned.
I understand that, when we are considering questions of adjustment, financial matters—although important—must not be the overriding consideration. As my hon. Friend recognised, important services are involved, providing important treatments that can benefit my constituents because the hospitals are so close to them. If we were not to have this relationship, and services were moved to Maidstone, it would put an unbearable burden on my constituents, who would have to travel 30 or more miles to the district hospitals on the south coast.
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his first speech in the House on health matters. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) gave him ample support. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the Government's programme to renew the national health service. I share his concern that the citizens of Tunbridge Wells—and, indeed, of every other constituency—should enjoy the best health care, delivered in the best facilities by the best clinicians. That is what the NHS sets out to deliver, and what the Government are determined to secure.
I also pay tribute to the staff of the hon. Gentleman's two local hospitals—one on the outskirts of town and the other in the centre—who deliver high-quality care, sometimes in difficult circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman has raised with me tonight and in correspondence his concern about the fact that the project to rationalise services of the Kent and Sussex Weald trust on to a single site at Pembury was not prioritised as a PFI project in July. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but it may be helpful if I briefly explain to the House precisely why prioritisation of PFI schemes was considered necessary, how schemes were chosen, and the implications for those such as Kent and Sussex that were not prioritised. I know that he wants to look to the future rather than rake over the past, but it is important that I address the issues that he has raised.
When the Government took office, we inherited from the previous Administration what I can only describe as a fantasy hospital building programme. Scores of hospital developments were trumpeted, with, as I remember well, capital values the size of telephone numbers and start dates that we were continually promised were just around the corner. We had been promised project signings at the rate of one a month. Unfortunately, not a single project materialised. Despite the promises of jam tomorrow, not a single hospital was built through the PFI process under the previous Administration.
The previous Government's overblown optimism about their hospital building programme was not matched by the private sector, which had invested much time and money in developing proposals that seemed to be going nowhere. There was confusion about the rules, uncertainty about the legislation, and an impossibly large number of potential schemes to manage and deliver.
The Government were elected on a mandate to sort out the mess that PFI had become. It was never going to be an overnight job, and the work continues today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we have made enormous progress. On taking office, the Paymaster General appointed Mr. Malcolm Bates to review the operation of PFI right across government, and he accepted every one of Mr. Bates's subsequent recommendations.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health undertook its own review. It was clear that, as a matter of priority, we had to secure the market for PFI, and we set about doing that in two ways. We prioritised the 43 major acute schemes in the pipeline, and we enacted legislation to clarify the powers of trusts to enter into PFI contracts.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, on 3 July I announced the outcome of prioritisation. I was able to announce 14 major new hospital schemes with a total
686
capital value of £1,300 million: the biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the national health service. That unlocked the gridlock. Most importantly, it secured the confidence of the private and public sectors in the ability of public-private partnerships to benefit patients by providing new services on the ground. That confidence was given a further boost on 14 July when the National Health Service (Private Finance) Act 1997 entered the statute book. The Government promise was delivered. Just a few weeks ago I was proud to be able to visit the Darenth Park project at Dartford and Gravesham. The trust there already has the builders at work and ahead of schedule. I have no doubt that the concrete proof there will be replicated throughout the country as schemes are brought to fruition.
I am pleased to note that the bond that has been used to finance a new hospital for the people of Carlisle, the first NHS/PFI scheme to be funded through the capital markets, will be launched tomorrow. I fully expect work to begin on that scheme by the beginning of next month.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I invite the Minister to visit Carlisle when building work starts on the hospital. We have a split site, and we have been working for 20 years for a new hospital. The Minister's news will be welcomed in my constituency.
Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being at the forefront of the local campaign to secure a new hospital for Carlisle. That long campaign has had a rich reward in the new development, and I should be delighted to accept his invitation to see progress when building starts.
In the context of Kent and Sussex Weald, I draw no comfort from the fact that many schemes have had to be stood down. I have no doubt that there is a demonstrable health service need for such schemes, and that the NHS would be improved if the projects were given the go-ahead. If it had been possible to deliver all 43 projects, I would have delivered them, particularly if that could have been done at an affordable price. However, I am afraid that arguments continued to rage in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells about the affordability of the scheme in the lead-up to the prioritisation exercise.
I have no apologies about the outcome of prioritising, because not all the schemes could have been delivered. A preferred bidder had not even been selected for Kent and Sussex Weald when prioritisation took place. As I think the hon. Member knows, more generally, resources were spread too thinly, expertise was lacking, and precious NHS cash was spent trying to breathe life into schemes that were just not ready.
The NHS spent a total of £30 million in management consultancy fees alone desperately trying to get PFI schemes off the ground, and there was not a single hospital project to show for it. I was not prepared to allow that waste to continue. Instead, we took the decision to prioritise on the basis of three criteria: health service need, project status and PFI-ability. We did that openly and objectively, and the results were published in full. Again I make no apology for that, because in my view health service need should always be the key determinant in progressing NHS schemes.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was right to point to the advantages that would have accrued to the Kent and Sussex Weald trust if its project had been

687
prioritised. As he rightly said, the trust currently operates on a split site—on the outskirts of Tunbridge Wells and in the centre of town—and the operational and training difficulties that that creates have been well documented. He alluded to them.
It is perhaps a sad indictment of the recent history of the NHS and of the hon. Member's party's mismanagement of it that in terms of health service need, Kent and Sussex Weald, despite pressing needs, was a considerable way down the list and below other potential projects whose need was greater. For health service need, Kent and Sussex Weald scored three out of a possible five where five represents greatest need. In the categories of PFI status and PFI-ability, the project scored only one out of five and nought out of five respectively. It was therefore considered extremely unlikely to reach financial close within 18 months, not least because the support of local health care commissioners was likely to depend on a more affordable, and therefore restructured, proposal.
The question then, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is what happens to the schemes that were not prioritised for the first PFI wave. The answer is that schemes that were not prioritised for the first wave are eligible for consideration by the capital prioritisation advisory group within the NHS executive. The group will consider the merits of eligible schemes, including, specifically, their health service need. In future, the key determinant of where capital projects take place in the NHS will be a simple one: whether those projects are most needed.
As configured under the previous Government, the PFI system did not take NHS need into account as the key determinant of where capital projects were to be developed. Instead, the philosophy of "let a thousand flowers bloom" meant that a thousand flowers did not bloom. Unfortunately, no flowers bloomed. Instead, the NHS wasted precious resources, precious time and precious skill trying to conjure schemes out of nowhere. The consequences were clear for all people to see: it failed. This prioritisation exercise, where NHS need will be the determining driver, will ensure that the most needed capital developments take place quickly.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that approach. He asked for sensible long-term planning, and that is what he will get through this route. The group will work closely with the Treasury task force in making its recommendations, and it will be for Ministers ultimately to decide which schemes should go ahead. Work is
688
already under way to prepare for scheme selection, and I expect to be able to announce the next tranche of PFI schemes in the spring.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the best thing to do was. The best thing to do for his trust, for himself and for the right hon. Member for Wealden is to alert the regional office to the needs of their constituents, and to try to persuade the office that this is a much needed scheme. The office may therefore decide that this is the sort of project that it would like advanced for national prioritisation.
The benefits will be clear for all. In particular, the private sector will know that schemes selected on that basis have every prospect of success. We anticipate considerable competition to deliver them. Needless to say, the bid that succeeds will be the one that offers best quality and value for money. Those schemes that are not considered PFI-able—and there may be some—may be considered for available public sector capital.
I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to agree that his local trust should not have been prioritised, but I hope that he will acknowledge that, since the announcement on 3 July, the trust's perspective has changed. The fact that the trust did not appeal against my decision when it could have done is a sure sign of its realism about the poor status of its previous PFI bid.
More positively, and looking to the future, I understand that the trust is now working on a collaborative agenda with Mid-Kent Healthcare NHS trust, and that it is likely that any future project proposal will take account of collaboration on site strategy, and possibly involve all three major sites—at Maidstone, Pembury, and Kent and Sussex. I have no doubt that, if a successful partnership can be forged to effect a strategy for the whole region, the hon. Gentleman's constituents can only benefit.
The Government also believe in co-operation and in partnership. We will continue to pursue our successful strategy of public-private partnerships, of which the PFI is one model. Our review of the PFI in the NHS continues, with a review of the procurement process and of the PFI product. We want deals to be quicker, better value for money, high quality, even more innovative, but, most of all, driven by that key determinant of NHS need. The NHS, taxpayers and, most important, local patients will benefit from that approach. I look forward to receiving the full support of the hon. Gentleman and of the right hon. Member for Wealden in that endeavour.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how long the millennium dome will remain in place. [12597]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The millennium experience dome will have a greatly enhanced lifespan following the decision to use PTFE-coated glass fibre for the roof. The Government are now considering its potential long-term uses.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what representations he has received about the use of PVC in the millennium dome; [12737]

  (2) what additives the PVC coating of the millennium dome will contain. [12739]

  (3) what discussions have taken place with the European Commission about the use of PVC for the coating of the millennium dome; [12598]

  (4) what evidence he has evaluated on PVC as an environmentally suitable material for use in coating the millennium dome; [12596]

  (5) what examination has been carried out of the restrictions on the use of PVC in other European countries; [12595]

  (6) where the PVC coating of the millennium dome will be manufactured. [12738]

  Mr. Mandelson
  On 22 August 1997, the New Millennium Experience Company—NMEC—announced its decision to change the roofing material of the Millennium Experience dome from PVC—coated polyester to PTFE—coated glass fibre. The reason for the change was to give the dome a greatly enhanced lifespan, thereby assisting delivery of the Government's aim to ensure an enduring legacy from the millennium experience. The extra longevity and durability of the dome's roof covering as a result of the change to PTFE—coated glass fibre will increase significantly the legacy options which can be considered.

  As part of its earlier considerations about PVC—coated polyester, the NMEC required a full environmental review, taking account of all available information in the UK, Europe and elsewhere, of the material's manufacture and disposal. The NMEC was satisfied that the material met all UK and EU environmental requirements. The company had no discussions with the European Commission but did receive representations about the use and safety of PCV from members of the public, from environmental groups including Greenpeace, and from companies involved in the chemical industry. PTFE—coated glass fibre, which is widely used across the world on large tensile roof structures, does not contain plasticising additives and also meets all UK and EU environmental requirements.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will assess the implications for the legal system of the United Kingdom of ratification of the treaty of Amsterdam, with particular reference to likely changes in court and legal procedures. [12812]

  Mr. Hoon
  Ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam will not affect court procedures in the United Kingdom. Under the treaty, civil judicial co-operation is transferred to the Community pillar, but it will not involve the United Kingdom unless we specifically choose to opt into a particular measure or measures.

  European Human Rights Convention
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effect on(a) legal precedents, (b) procedures and (c) the operation of the common law in the United Kingdom of (i) the adoption of the European convention on human rights by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and (ii) the coming into force of the treaty of Amsterdam; and if he will make a statement. [12839]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have set out our proposals on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law in the White Paper, "Rights Brought Home," published on 24 October. The White Paper explains the provisions of the Human Rights Bill introduced in another place on 23 October. As regards the treaty of Amsterdam, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to question No. 198N, UIN 12812.

  Gazumping
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to combat gazumping. [12495]

  Mr. Hoon
  A number of Government Departments are co-operating closely to investigate the whole of the house buying process. My own Department is concentrating on the problem of gazumping with the help of the various institutions whose members provide professional services in the housing market. The various strands of work are being co-ordinated by a ministerial working group comprising Ms Hilary Armstrong, Minister for Local Government Housing, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, myself as Chairman and key officials from our Departments.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the(a) total number of people employed in the United Kingdom tourism industry and (b) financial contribution to the United Kingdom economy of the tourism industry. [12525]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The latest available figures show that there are around 1.7 million people employed in tourism-related industries in Great Britain. The revenue
  651
  generated by tourism in the United Kingdom is estimated to be £40 billion for 1996. This is equivalent to approximately 5 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has to develop a strategy for further development of the United Kingdom tourism industry. [12519]

  Mr. Clarke
  The Government believe that the further development of tourism can best be achieved by working in full partnership with the industry, local authorities, tourist boards and others. On 10 October we therefore announced an expanded role for the Tourism Forum and the creation of a new forum working group on strategic planning.

  Television Reception (Wales)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of households in Wales which can receive(a) HTV, (b) BBC Wales transmissions and (c) both. [12548]

  Mr. Fisher
  Responsibility for the transmission arrangements for television services in the United Kingdom rest with the BBC and the Independent Television Commission. I have been advised that, at present, 98.3 per cent. of the population of Wales has access to television signals from a Welsh transmitter, an English transmitter, or both, which constitute a technically adequate service according to the technical standards agreed by the broadcasters. A total of 96.8 per cent. of the population of Wales can receive HTV, 97.2 per cent. BBC1 Wales and 96.8 per cent. can receive both services.

  Tennis Clubs
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate he has made of the number of voluntary-managed tennis clubs in England and Wales; [12708]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of voluntary-managed tennis clubs in England and Wales which are tenants of (a) local authorities, (b) private landowners and (c) public companies. [12709]

  Mr. Banks
  My Department has made no estimate of the number of voluntary-managed tennis clubs in England and Wales or the type of tenure they might have. However, I am pleased that the Lawn Tennis Association is carrying out a comprehensive survey which should address these issues. The results will be available next year.

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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 subcontractors 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. [12565]
  652
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has purchased the Integra Accounting package from GC McKeown Ltd. to perform the processing of payments for goods and services.

  The work to process the payments is undertaken by the Department with some functions outsourced to CSL Managed Services Ltd. It has no co-operative arrangements with other Departments. The Department orders the goods and services, certifies the invoices and enters the information into the computer system. CSL arranges for payment either by payable order, banker's automated clearing service or clearing house automated payment service on behalf of the Department. The cost of implementing the new system during 1996–97 was £112,609 including the cost of some sub-contractors, whilst the cost of the work performed by CSL during 1996–97 was £101,850.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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 subcontractors 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. [12563]

  Dr. David Clark
  For this purpose, I have responsibility for the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's Office and the Office of Public Service and its agencies, and the Central Office of Information.

  In my Department the functions relating to the payment of goods and services are generally performed by integrated accounting services supplied either by a bureau or by in-house development, using either bespoke or package accounting software.

  During the year ending March 1997 the functions of the Cabinet Office, core OPS and the Civil Service College were supplied by the Chessington computer centre. Other arrangements were as follows:

  Agency

  COI

  software package

  Computer Associates

  SAFE

  software package

  Tetra

  GCDA

  software package

  arrangement with SAFE

  CCTA

  software package

  Systems Union

  TBA

  bespoke system

  supported by the Unisys

  PACE

  bureau service

  supplied by the DOE

  Although there were no specific sub-contractual arrangements the COI system is run on hardware supplied and maintained by Hewlett Packard and SAFE has a similar contract with Connectivity Plus. CCTA has a maintenance contract with Touchstone Computers and a management arrangement with Chessington Computer Services.

  The total costs of these systems and services during the year ending March 1997 was £334,093, excluding VAT. However, the Cabinet Office, core OPS and the Civil

  653
  Service College have now replaced the Chessington bureaux service with new package software supplied by Systems Union.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the number and proportion of(a) Asians and (b) Afro-Caribbeans in each grade in the civil service. [11103]

  align="center">Staff in post at 1 April 1996 grade level by ethnic origin

  Grade level

  Afro-Caribbean

  Per cent. Caribbean

  Afro-Asian

  Per cent. Asian

  Total respondents

  SCS (1 to 5)

  13

  0.34

  43

  1.13

  3,819

  6

  18

  0.42

  91

  2.10

  4,325

  7

  82

  0.55

  216

  1.45

  14,906

  SEO

  68

  0.33

  263

  1.28

  20,500

  HEO

  553

  0.84

  736

  1.12

  65,839

  EO

  1,494

  1.54

  2,280

  2.35

  96,929

  AO

  4,275

  2.97

  5,873

  4.08

  144,099

  AA

  2,212

  3.47

  2,684

  4.20

  63,837

  Other

  5

  0.33

  8

  0.53

  1,505

  Summary information

  8,720

  2.10

  12,194

  2.93

  415,759

  1. Percentages refer to total respondents in grade.

  2. Source MANDATE/Departmental returns.

  3. MANDATE is the Office of Public Service's database of information about civil service personnel.

  It. covers most Government Departments and agencies, those not included in MANDATE are required to complete a manual return for the information.

  4. The figures include both non-industrial and industrial staff.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs Tsar
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council how many names were selected as a result of the first sift of applicants for the position of drugs tsar. [12932]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The recruitment and assessment service performed an initial sift of all 202 applications for the post of UK anti-drugs co-ordinator. This resulted in the identification of 57 particularly strong candidates. Ministers considered these applications very carefully before interviewing the seven strongest candidates.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council how many individuals applied for the post of drugs tsar, broken down by main occupational category of applicant. [12931]

  Mrs. Taylor
  A total of 202 applications for the post of UK anti-drugs co-ordinator were received from a very diverse range of candidates by the deadline of 5 September. A breakdown by occupational category cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the(a) procedure and (b) financial effect of VAT base capping in respect of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Union general budget for 1998. [12283]

  Mrs. Liddell
  VAT capping was first introduced for the EC budget in 1988, at a rate of 55 per cent. of 1 per cent. of each member state's gross national product.
  654
  Dr. David Clark
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 July 1997, c. 314–15.]: Information on the ethnic origin of civil servants is collected using a voluntary, self-classification, confidential questionnaire. The number and proportion of Asian and Afro-Caribbean civil servants, by grade equivalents, who have submitted a questionnaire, as at 1 April 1996, is set out in the table.

  Under the current own resources decision the VAT capping rate is being reduced progressively from 55 per cent. in 1994 to 50 per cent. in 1999. The 50 per cent. rate has applied to Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal since 1995. The VAT capping arrangements are broadly neutral for the UK because any change resulting from the application of the capping mechanism is offset a year in arrears by an equal but opposite change to our abatement.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what legislation he plans to introduce for the implementation of value added tax at the point of origin for intra-European Union imports and exports; [12532]

  (2) what proposals he has relating to trans-European Union harmonisation of VAT. [12485]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. The current EC VAT system, with tax accruing in the member state of consumption for intra-Community transactions, remains in force in the absence of unanimous agreement to change it. The European Commission has yet to produce legislative proposals for changes to the current system, and so discussions on the merits or otherwise of a move to an origin-based system have not even begun. The Government, while supportive of efforts to simplify and modernise the current EC VAT system, is opposed to further unnecessary harmonisation at the Community level.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the system of value added taxation in relation to cereal bars, morning bars, and similar products; and if he will make a statement. [12543]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Cereal bars and similar products, other than cakes, are liable to VAT at the standard rate. I have no plans to change their taxation.

  EU Budget
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the correction of budgetary imbalances as experienced in the preliminary draft European Union budget for 1998, and its effect on the United Kingdom contribution to the European Union budget. [12511]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The sterling value of the United Kingdom (UK) abatement contained in the 1998 preliminary draft budget—2,066 mecu—will be determined by the pound/ecu exchange rate which applies at the end of this calendar year. If the rate were to remain at the level it was at on 30 September—£1 = 1.4501 ecu—the reduction to the UK's contribution due to the abatement would be £1,425 million in 1998.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the actual and projected European Union budgets for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; what are the gross and net contributions from the United Kingdom (i) in sterling, (ii) in ecus and (iii) as a percentage of all national contributions in each year; and if he will make a statement. [12290]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The European Community budgets on a calendar year basis.

  The table sets out the information requested in respect of the United Kingdom's gross contribution before abatement for the calendar years 1996, 1997 and 1998.

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total contributions by Member States

  72,160 mecu

  77,372 mecu

  82,313 mecu

  UK gross contribution, before abatement,

  11,000 mecu

  11,332 mecu

  13,631 mecu

  and percentage of total contributions

  15.25 per cent.

  14,65 per cent.

  16.56 per cent.

  UK gross contribution, before abatement, (sterling)

  £8,825 million

  £8,355 million

  £9,400 million

  Sources:

  Figures for total contributions and UK gross contribution before abatement (mecu) taken from: 1996 Supplementary and Amending Budget; 1997 draft Supplementary and Amending Budget: 1998 Draft Budget. The sterling equivalent of the UK figures have been derived by converting at the following exchange rates:

  1996 £1 = 1.2467 ecu; 1997 £ = 1.3564 ecu; 1998 £ = 1.4501 ecu.

  The UK's net contribution for 1996, expressed in sterling and based on the cash transactions which took place during the year, was £2,352 million. The current estimate on the same basis for 1997 is £1,342 million. These net contribution figures include adjustments and corrections made in respect of our VAT and GNP-based contributions, of our abatement and of Community spending for earlier years. The figures are thus not directly comparable to the gross revenue raised in respect of particular Community budgets.

  As is usual, the Government will provide an estimate of the net contribution for the Community budgetary year 1998 in the annual White Paper "Statement on the Community Budget", once the Budget for that year has been adopted and when the revenue and spending requirements for the year are known.
  656
  The figures in the table and the amounts for the net contribution demonstrate the wide fluctuation to which the UK's contributions to the EC budget are subject. These fluctuations are principally due to a range of technical factors such as the timing of our payments and receipts, adjustments and corrections to our contributions in earlier years, exchange rate movements and changes and corrections in the value of the UK's abatement.

  Single European Currency
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission studies on the impact of a single currency on the number and variety of wholesale trade and retail enterprises in the United Kingdom. [12528]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have established a business advisory group to consider the practical implications of economic and monetary union for businesses, whether or not the United Kingdom were to join the single currency. A wide range of organisations, including those representing shops and small firms, are represented on the advisory group and working parties reporting to it.

  Sterling Coinage
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his Department's proposals for dealing with sterling coinage going out of circulation over the next five years. [12518]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The 50p piece, introduced in October 1969, is the only coin which is currently planned to be withdrawn from circulation over the next five years. It is due to be phased out of circulation and will cease to be legal tender on 28 February 1998. It is being replaced by a smaller and lighter version which was introduced into circulation on 1 September 1997.

  EMU (Publicity)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what EU funding his Department has sought in relation to publicity in respect of the introduction of European monetary union; in respect of which projects or publications such funding was sought; which bodies produced such publicity; and what control his Department exercised over the content of any publicity. [12968]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have applied for financial assistance to meet half the costs of producing and distributing a guide, "EMU Practical Information for Business". This amounts to around £21,000. The guide was produced entirely by Her Majesty's Treasury to help raise awareness in British business of the practical and strategic implications that the euro would have for their operations whether or not the United Kingdom were to join. Copies of the guide are available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total expenditure budget on(a) official expenditure and (b) overseas travel by Ministers and officials by his Department in the current Session. [12586]
  657
  Mrs. Liddell
  Between 1 May and 20 October spending on official hospitality by Ministers and officials amounted to £11,400; and £317,100 has been spent on overseas travel and subsistence.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 June,Official Report, columns 229–30, what guidelines the Monetary Policy Committee has adopted in respect of public comments by its members. [12352]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee meetings record the votes of individual members. Members of the MPC are free to discuss their views in public speeches or comments to the press, but are not permitted to disclose the content of unpublished minutes of the MPC.

  The Committee has, moreover, adopted some guidelines on public comments by members which are designed, inter alia, to avoid confusion around the time of MPC meetings. In particular, the Committee has decided that members should avoid giving speeches and contact with the media for a period of eight days from the Friday before the MPC meeting to the Friday after the announcement of the decision on interest rates. In the months when the inflation report is published, this period extends until publication of the report—typically the following Wednesday. The Committee decided that this arrangement should cover public discussion of the UK economy and the decisions and processes of the MPC, but not other issues which are outside the work of the Committee.

DEFENCE

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals took part in the service volunteers programme at the chemical defence establishment during 1996. [12201]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the numbers of service volunteers as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  During 1996 forty two service volunteers took part in various studies as part of service volunteers programme run by the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) scientific journals and (b) other open publications in which staff from the medical division of the chemical defence establishment published papers in 1991 and 1992 arising out of their work and research, indicating the date of publication. [12202]
  658
  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about scientific journals and open publications in which staff from the medical division at Porton Down have published papers as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Available databases show that during the years 1991 and 1992 staff from the medical division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down published papers in the following scientific journals.
  In 1991:- Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Review; International Journal of Experimental Pathology; Human Experimental Toxicology; British Journal of Plastic Surgery; Proceedings of the British Toxicology Society; York, England, UK, September 20–21 1990 published in Human Experimental Toxicology; Journal of Biomechanics.
  In 1992:- British Journal of Surgery; Human Experimental Toxicology; Clinical Intensive Care; Psychopharmacology; Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine; Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons England.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what concentrations of the chemical agent CN the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has assessed that the long-term clinical effects occur; and when this assessment was made. [12184]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about concentrations of the agent CN assessed by DERA as causing long-term clinical effects as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  CN, chloracetophenone, belongs to a group of agents referred to as tear gases; these cause sensory irritation to the eyes, nose and skin.
  DERA has not assessed the concentrations of CN that cause long term clinical effects. Most of the information concerning long-term effects in man are based on case reports from the United States, following widespread use during the 1960s Civil Rights Riots. These reports contain no reliable information regarding the concentrations of CN that produced such effects.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what doses of mustard gas have been assessed by DERA as causing scarring of the conjunctiva and permanent damage. [12185]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about doses of mustard gas assessed by DERA as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.

  659
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA has not assessed the dose levels of mustard gas which cause scarring of the conjunctiva and permanent damage.
  However DERA is aware of case reports from the United States which suggest that doses of between 400 and 800 milligrams per cubic metre per minute of mustard vapour result in corneal damage with ulceration and scarring of the conjunctiva.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out at the chemical defence establishment into a sensory irritant known as 1-methoxycycloheptatriene since 1967; what was the object of this research; when this research was carried out; and what was the conclusion of this research. [12177]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about research into the sensory irritant known as 1-methoxycycloheptatriene (MCHT) as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down investigated MCHT in the period between 1974 and the mid-1980s. The studies were intermittent and designed to investigate the sensory irritancy and safety of the compound.
  The studies concluded that the advantages of using 1-methoxycycloheptatriene compared to conventional sensory irritants such as CS were not significant.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the chemical defence establishment's assessment of the effect on human health in(a) the short-term and (b) the long-term of one-off exposure to oleoresin capsicum; what research has been carried out by the chemical defence establishment into oleoresin capsicum since 1967; what was the purpose of this research; when this research was conducted; and what was the conclusion of this research. [12181]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the effects of and research into oleoresin capsicum as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Oleoresin capsicum (OC) is a natural oil of the chilli pepper. Chemically, it is a complex mixture of over one hundred volatile compounds, in which capsaicin is a principle compound. The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down has not conducted any practical research on oleoresin capsicum, but it has used capsaicin as a positive control in a number of animal tissue studies designed to evaluate the relative sensory irritancy of a number of compounds.
  As far as the effects of oleoresin capsicum on human health are concerned, it is reported in the technical literature that short term exposure causes pain and irritation of the membranes lining the eyes, nose and mouth. Blistering and a rash have been shown to occur after chronic or prolonged exposure of the skin. Ingestion of capsicum may cause acute stinging of the lips, tongue and mouth,
  660
  and may lead to vomiting and diarrhoea with large doses. Inhalation of the vapours may also cause significant irritation of the airways and prolonged cough.
  In the long-term, a single acute exposure to OC may affect the temperature regulatory mechanisms of the body and can affect the neurological system producing long-term insensitivity to pain.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the chemical defence establishment's evaluation of the effects of short-term exposure to mustard gas. [12175]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understood he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the evaluation of the effects of short-term exposure to mustard gas as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Mustard gas, (bis (2-chloroeythyl) sulphide), belongs to a group of chemical warfare agents known as vesicant or blistering agents.
  DERA's evaluation, based on historical evidence including casualty reports from the First World War and more recent nursing of Iranian patients in the UK in the mid-1980s, indicates that short term exposure to mustard gas affects the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Additionally, the evidence available from literature and practical studies is that the gastrointestinal tract, reproductive organs and bone marrow are affected if high doses are absorbed into the body. The effects on the skin consist of reddening followed by blistering; similar effects are seen at the other affected areas. Once the blisters rupture, ulceration of the skin follows; these injuries take a long while to heal. The effects on the eyes, respiratory tract and gastrointestinal tract are similar to those seen in the skin. Initially the tissues become inflamed and swollen. Eventually, the protective membranes break down and areas of ulceration result.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the chemical defence establishment's evaluation of the effects of short-term exposure to lewisite. [12179]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the evaluation of the effects of short-term exposure to lewisite as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Lewisite is one of a group of chemical warfare agents known as vesicants or blistering agents.
  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA's evaluation based on US human studies from the 1940s and continuing Porton Down animal studies of the effects of short-term exposure to lewisite are that both liquid and vapour forms result in chemical burns to the skin, eyes and respiratory tract. Lewisite injuries are immediately painful. The potential for widespread damage to the internal organs is significant.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out at the chemical defence establishment into perfuoroisobutene
  661
  since 1967; what was the object of this research; when this research was carried out; and what was the conclusion of this research. [12178]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about research into perfluorisobutene as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Since 1967 some research into perfluorisobutene has been undertaken at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of DERA at Porton Down to assess whether its use as a chemical weapon would pose a potential hazard to the UK Armed Forces. This research encompassed: material producibility, material toxicity, an assessment of material dispersion, the performance of UK CBD protective equipment in providing protection against this material and possible methods of providing pretreatment and treatment against poisoning.
  The bulk of this research was conducted during the 1980s with some research on protective measures had medical treatment still ongoing. It has been concluded that this material does have potential as a possible chemical weapon agent and that it does pose a potential hazard to UK Armed Forces. As a consequence of this research certain equipment modifications have been introduced.

  Porton Down Staff Newsletter
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current security classification of the newsletter produced for the staff of the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down; how often this newsletter is produced; and when this newsletter was first produced. [12182]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend and understand he did so on 20 August 1997.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 20 August 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the staff newsletter at Porton Down as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Internal newsletters at Porton Down have been produced in many different forms over the years. They are not usually classified but are not generally circulated outside the MOD.
  CBD News was first produced in its current format in February 1995. It is usually published monthly, although there has recently been a three month gap between editions. It is not classified but is only distributed to staff at Porton Down and a small number of staff elsewhere in DERA and MOD.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [12564]
  662
  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Bills Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mr. I. S. Elrick to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 27 October 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about payment for MOD goods and services as, in the main, this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency.
  The Defence Bills Agency is the Primary bill payment authority for MOD but the Meteorological Office, Hydrographic Office and Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) also undertake specified bill payment action. Set out below is the information you requested for each operating system.
  The Defence Bills Agency operates a bespoke system, developed in-house, which integrates contract control functionality with the bill payment system. Certain support functions are provided using systems supplied by AVCO Systems Ltd and ROCC Computers Ltd. During 1996–97 the system was operated on an ICL 3965 Dual Node Mainframe. The operating platform has been uprated in 1997–98 to an ICL SX 485–20 to cope with the additional requirements arising from the introduction of Resource Accounting. The operating cost of the system in 1996–97 was £2.4 million (excluding VAT).
  During 1996–97 the Meteorological Office used a Ross purchase ledger run on a VAX machine. DERA assisted in implementing this system and supported both hardware and software. The operating costs of the systems and processes was £222,000 (excluding VAT).
  The Hydrographic Office used Prophecy Version 2 running on a DEC Alpha box under UNIX. Software supply, maintenance and development was provided by Radius Computer Systems Ltd. The operating cost of the bill payment systems and processes was £66,000 (excluding VAT) during 1996–97.
  During 1996–97 DERA used Digital Equipment Company VAX hardware running Ross Classic software. No sub-contractors were used in developing or operating the system during 1996–97. The operating cost of the systems and processes was £1.8 million (excluding VAT).

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Police agency for 1997–98. [12580]

  Dr. Reid
  The following key targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Policy agency:Crown Prosecution Service files: to exceed the provincial Home Department police forces' 74 per cent. average rate of compliance with the time limits set for the preparation of CPS files.
  To determine a benchmark for satisfaction from victims of crime in the service provided by MDP.
  To meet and maintain the national 1996 British crime survey standard of 80 per cent. for public satisfaction with the MDP's policing and security services.
  By 1 April 1998 to have achieved the standard of Investors in People.
  By 31 March 1998 to have reduced the force complement to a level at or below 3,750 officers.
  By 31 March 1998 to implement the additional area policing teams approved by Ministers.
  To achieve the level of efficiency savings of 2.5 per cent. prescribed within Departmental and efficiency plans.

  Overseas Security Forces (Training)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards are in place to ensure United Kingdom troops are not involved in training overseas security forces later used in internal repression. [12347]

  Dr. Reid
  The provision of training for overseas security forces is a valuable tool in furthering the Government's defence and foreign policy objectives. Requests for training are considered on a case-by-case basis. Close contact is maintained between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and training would not be provided where we considered it would contribute to human rights violations. Even where human rights is not specifically covered, training provided by our military forces supports Government human rights policy by exposing overseas students to human rights standards and helping them develop an understanding of how armed forces operate in a democratic society.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training United Kingdom troops have given to the Kenyan army and security forces. [12348]

  Dr. Reid
  It has been the practice in the past not to release details of military assistance provided to other countries on the grounds that this information is confidential between Governments and disclosure would risk damaging our international relations. This practice is now being reviewed against the background of the Government's commitment to openness. I will write to my hon. Friend once the review is complete.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training of members of the Colombian police force in Colombia is being undertaken by the SAS. [12846]

  Dr. Reid
  Any comment on such matters could cause harm in terms of one or more of the defence, security or international relations exemptions in the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".

  Energy and Environmental Education
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to review its relationship with non-governmental organisations involved in energy and environmental education. [12546]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's relationships with non-governmental organisations involved in energy or environmental training has extended to contracting for such training when required. We have introduced more in-house environmental training, which includes energy education, to meet most of our current needs. There will nevertheless be a continuing requirement for specialist NGO training to meet the needs of staff in key environmental protection and energy appointments.

  Exports (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the normal offset arrangement for Indonesia for purchases above 500 million rupiahs; and what percentage offset was required as part of the deal to export Hawk trainers to Indonesia. [12341]
  664
  Mr. Spellar
  For contracts over 500 million rupiahs, a 100 per cent. obligation is incurred. The contracts signed in 1993 and 1996 for the export of Hawk trainers to Indonesia were both in excess of 500 million rupiahs.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential benefits from use of the private finance initiative in his Department's projects in Northern Ireland. [12959]

  Dr. Reid
  I have given approval for two pilot PFI projects to be run to explore the feasibility of the Army making use of the private finance initiative in Northern Ireland. One involves the provision of families quarters in Ballymena, Antrim and Lisburn areas and the other the provision of living and working accommodation and facilities management in Lisburn. A briefing day for firms interested in the families quarters project was held on 20 October 1997 but it is too early to assess the potential benefits if the PFI proves practicable.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the security implications of non-civil service arrangements for the work presently carried out in his Department by Building Management (Northern Ireland). [12958]

  Dr. Reid
  Management, construction and maintenance of the Defence estate in Northern Ireland is carried out by a combination of commercial firms, MOD civil servants and service personnel. We are currently reviewing the headquarters Northern Ireland estate organisation, including the Building Management (Northern Ireland) element. As part of this we shall be taking into account the financial and personnel, as well as security, implications of any proposals for change.

  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for replacing civilian workers with Army personnel in his Department's establishments in Northern Ireland. [12960]

  Dr. Reid
  The hon. Gentleman will understand that the military and civilian manpower mix in MOD establishments in Northern Ireland is kept under review to provide the most efficient and cost effective use of personnel.

  Higher Education Sponsorship
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of(a) women and (b) men in full-time higher education receive financial aid or sponsorship from the (i) Army, (ii) Royal Navy and (iii) Royal Air Force. [12923]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Parliament Buildings
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations
  665
  his Department has made on the financing of new buildings for the European Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg. [12510]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have consistently pressed for value for money and sound financial practice in all European institutions. Overall ceilings for expenditure are set by the Council, but within that, spending by the European Parliament on building and other programmes is a matter for the Parliament in the first place, subject to scrutiny of its spending by the European Court of Auditors. We have not made separate representations.

  European Courts
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) those functions of final decision that will lie within the competence of the European Community Court of Justice in Luxembourg in respect of (i) criminal and (ii) civil cases and (b) those functions concerning human rights that will be within the competence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, following the coming into force of the treaty of Amsterdam. [12848]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg will continue to have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on questions of Community law in cases referred to it by courts or tribunals of a member state pursuant to article 177 of the treaty establishing the European Community. It will also acquire jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on questions relating to certain instruments adopted under the revised title VI of the treaty on European Union—police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters—in cases referred to it by courts or tribunals in any member state which, by a declaration, accepts that jurisdiction. We do not intend to accept that jurisdiction.

  The treaty of Amsterdam does not affect the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is governed by the European convention for the protection of human rights and freedoms, and the protocols thereto.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which(a) criminal and (b) civil matters relating to the European Community and Union will come within the competence of the European Community Court of Justice either as direct jurisdiction, by case law, or after consultation by national court subsequent to the coming into force of the treaty of Amsterdam. [12866]

  Mr. Henderson
  The European Court of Justice will continue to have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on questions of Community law in cases, whether criminal or civil, which may be referred to it by courts or tribunals in a member state pursuant to article 177 of the treaty establishing the European Community. It will also acquire jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on questions relating to certain instruments adopted under title VI of the Treaty on European Union as revised by the treaty of Amsterdam—police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters—in cases referred to it by courts or tribunals in any member state which, by a declaration, accepts that jurisdiction. We do not intend to accept that jurisdiction.
  666
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which matters concerning human rights will be determined by(a) the Court of European Human Rights in Strasbourg and (b) the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, following the coming into force of the treaty of Amsterdam. [12867]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The treaty of Amsterdam does not affect the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is governed by the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the protocols thereto. The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg will have jurisdiction in the field of fundamental rights only with regard to action of the Community institutions, in so far as the Court has jurisdiction under the treaties establishing the European Communities and under the Treaty on European Union.

  EU Funding (Political Groups)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much European Communities funding was made available to the(a) PSE, (b) PPE, (c) ELDR and (d) EdN groups of the European Parliament in the last year for which figures are available. [12291]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The total amount of EU funding made available to the political groups in the European Parliament in 1995 was 12.055 mecu—£17.5 million. The 1997 budget allows for 12.5 mecu—£18 million.

  We are awaiting figures broken down against individual political groups. I will write to the hon. Member when this information is received.

  European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 90–91, what aspects of culture will be monitored by the European monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia. [12331]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It will be for the centre itself to decide on its work programme. The monitoring centre must, however, carry out its tasks within the limits of Community competence.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Agenda 2000 applicant countries will be expected to treat membership of the Western European Union as acquis communautaires. [12529]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No. Membership of the European Union does not require membership of the Western European Union, which is a separate organisation.

  European Commission (Special Advisers)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many special advisers
  667
  are employed at the European Commission; for which commissioners they work; what is their nationality; what is their total pay; and if he will make a statement. [12327]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Each Commissioner is entitled to appoint one paid special adviser. Special advisers are not full-time employees of the Commission. They are consulted ad hoc, and paid per day worked. Total pay for all special advisers in 1996 was 165,000 ecu. They are not selected on the basis of nationality.

  Turkey
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Treasury over the cost of the measures proposed by the European Commission to deepen European Union relations with Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [12344]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department is in regular contact with the Treasury about the European Commission's proposals for deepening relations with Turkey. The UK supports the Commission's view that these should be financed from existing resources under the customs union protocol agreed by the Council in 1995 and the MEDA regulation.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Commission's proposal to increase co-operation between the EU and Turkey(a) on the environment, (b) on social development, (c) on justice and home affairs and (d) on humanitarian issues. [12328]

  Mr. Henderson
  We welcome the European Commission's proposal to increase co-operation in the above areas, which would benefit EU member states and Turkey.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy on the accession of Cyprus to the EU. [12530]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We support Cyprus' accession to the EU. We hope that this will be on the basis of a settlement, leading to the accession of a bizonal, bicommunal federation. This will bring benefits to both communities on the island.

  European Union (Co-operation)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on increasing co-operation in the European Union at the consular and diplomatic level; and if he will make a statement. [12316]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The obligation on diplomatic and consular missions of Member states to co-operate in implementing common measures adopted by the Council was created by article J.6 of the Maastricht Treaty. That obligation is relocated but unchanged in article J.10 of the draft Amsterdam treaty. We are committed to ensuring effective implementation of agreed EU policies.

  Prince Programme
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the Prince programme funding has been spent in the United Kingdom since the programme's inception; on what it has been spent; what plans he has in respect of further projects; what safeguards he has put in place to prevent its use for promotional purposes; and if he will make a statement. [12343]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Total prince spending in the UK in 1996—the first full year of the programme—was around 450,000 ecu. Of this, around 400,000 ecu was spent on Citizens First and 50,000 ecu on information about the Intergovernmental conference.

  We are committed to raising the profile of Citizens First in the UK as we fully support its aim of informing people about their rights and opportunities in the EU. We will be helping to publicise the second phase of the programme over the next few months.

  We have also applied for funding from Prince to meet half the costs of our "EMU: Information for Business" guide. The guide was produced by HM Treasury to help raise awareness in British business of the practical implications of EMU for their operations whether the UK were to join or not.

  We believe that the British people have a right to accurate information about the EU, whether from Government Departments or from the Community institutions.

  EU (Estonian Accession)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of provisions relating to a common foreign and security policy in the draft Amsterdam treaty on the accession of Estonia to the EU. [12537]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Nothing in the CFSP provisions in the draft Amsterdam treaty will affect Estonia's eligibility to join the EU. Estonia, like every other applicant, would be expected to take on all the obligations in the treaty.

  EU Citizenship
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the recommendations contained in the second report from the Commission on citizenship of the Union (EC Cons Doc 8856/97). [12476]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We welcome the report's recommendation that the EU improve citizens' awareness of their rights within the Union. In support of the aim, we are working to raise the profile of the Citizens First programme in the UK. We also agree with the need to ensure that citizen's rights are enforced.

  The report claims that EU citizens will not have tangible evidence of the full effects of the internal market without the elimination of border controls. The UK's position is clear: our border controls are not incompatible with the proper functioning of the internal market,

  669
  including the free movement of persons. We do not intend to eliminate the UK's border controls, which are guaranteed in the treaty of Amsterdam.

  Child Trafficking (West Africa)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet representatives from(a) anti-slavery and child welfare organisations, (b) the United Nations and (c) west African Governments to discuss the trafficking of children in west Africa; and if he will make a statement. [12895]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We deplore the practice of child trafficking. We have given strong support to the work of the United Nations, including the special rapporteur on the sale of children, in monitoring and combating it. We will continue to work for an end to the practice with relevant Governments and non-governmental organisations concerned with the issue.

  Dependent Territories
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for consultation with the Governments of dependent territories during the current review of their status. [12961]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have begun consultations with the Governments of the dependent territories. The Government of Gibraltar was already considering proposals for constitutional change before we announced this review. We will therefore be looking at these proposals separately.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by section those aspects of the Amsterdam treaty which will require primary legislation to amend any United Kingdom Act of Parliament. [12849]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It will be necessary to amend section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to give effect in domestic law to those provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam and those protocols adopted at Amsterdam which will form part of the Community legal order. These are articles 2 to 9, article 12, and the other provisions of the treaty so far as they relate to those articles; as well as the protocols adopted at Amsterdam other than the protocol on article J.7 of the treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what copies of the provisional draft treaty of Amsterdam were available in the United Kingdom between its publication and 2 October; when and by whom the substantive text of the treaty, as signed on 2 October, was published in the United Kingdom; what significant changes in the text were made between the provisional and signatory versions of the treaty; and if he will place in the Library a full list of such changes. [12811]

  Mr. Henderson
  Copies of the following versions of the draft treaty of Amsterdam were sent to Parliament on these dates:

  CONF/4001: 18 June

  CONF/4002: 16 July

  670

  CONF/4004: 7 August

  CONF/4005: 26 September

  The final version of the treaty—CONF 4007—was sent to Parliament on 10 October, and will be published shortly as a command paper. No major changes were made in the text of the treaty between the provisional version and the treaty as signed. There were a number of declarations made which do not form part of the treaty.

  Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what ministerial visits have been made to Colombia since 1 August; and if Ministers visited camps containing displaced peasant farmers forced from their lands by paramilitary groups. [12786]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am the only member of the Government to have visited Colombia since 1 August. I did not visit any of the camps containing displaced people, although I met and discussed the issue with their representatives.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Colombian Government about the situation of internally displaced peasant farmers in Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [12804]

  Mr. Lloyd
  The plight of the displaced people of Colombia is a symptom of the internal conflict in that country. During my visit to Colombia last month, I raised with the Colombian Government our concerns about a variety of humanitarian problems resulting from the internal security situation, including that of displaced people.

  Official Functions and Conferences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) official entertainment functions and (b) conferences which have been held at (i) Chevening and (ii) 1 Carlton Gardens since May 1997. [12921]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following official functions have taken place at Chevening:

  Conference organised by the Department of Social Services;

  British German Economic Committee;

  Conference arranged by the Department of Trade and Industry;

  FCO Board of Management;

  Conference for GCHQ.

  In the majority of these cases these discussions required participants to stay overnight.

  At 1 Carlton gardens the following functions have been held:

  21 May: Dinner for the governor of Hong Kong

  24 May: Lunch for the Japanese Foreign Minister

  12 June: Dinner for the Crown Prince of Nepal

  7 July: Lunch for the Omani Foreign Minister

  10 July: Lunch for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group

  21 July: Dinner for the Amir of Qatar

  23 July: Lunch for the French Foreign Minister

  8 September: Dinner for the American ambassador

  10 September: Dinner for the Luxembourg Foreign Minister

  671

  11 September: Lunch for the Austrian Foreign Minister

  12 September: Lunch for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group

  12 September: Tea for the Italian Foreign Minister

  20 October: Tea for the Belgian Foreign Minister

  21 October: Lunch for the American ambassador

  22 October: Lunch for the chief executive of the Hong Kong special administrative region.

  OSCE Vienna Conference
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he wrote to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee inviting him to nominate a member to attend the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference in Vienna on politico-military aspects of security. [12802]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I wrote to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 30 July. I invited the Committee to nominate a representative to join the UK delegation to the conference on the code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security in Vienna from 22 to 24 September.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons an invitation for a particular parliamentarian to attend the OSCE conference on politico-military aspects of security was addressed to the Foreign Affairs Committee and not to the OSCE delegation. [12803]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The conference in Vienna from 22 to 24 September to review the code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security was the first such conference since the code's adoption in December 1994. I addressed the invitation to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, rather than the UK delegation to the OSCE parliamentary assembly, because the democratic control of the military in Europe is a subject of wider, foreign affairs interest.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Attorney-General 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 subcontractors 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. [12566]

  The Attorney-General
  The position in relation to the Department for which I am responsible is as follows:

  The Crown Prosecution Service
  The Crown Prosecution Service has 13 geographical areas, a central case work group and a national headquarters. Each area has its own accounts section which is responsible for handling invoices for goods and services received and claims from prosecution witnesses in respect of expense claims for attendance at court.
  In 1996–97 the CPS employed Chessington Computer Services Ltd. to process and make payments to suppliers and to witnesses. The software used by Chessington Computer Services Ltd. was the management accounting information system, MAISY. The cost of this service was £723,894.
  672
  There are no sub-contractors involved in making payments. The internal process costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Serious Fraud Office
  The Serious Fraud Office use a payment processing package known as Purchase Ledger supplied by CEDARDATA.
  The majority of payments are made through Paymaster by payable order or, if to another Government Department, by transfer. No sub-contractors are involved.
  The cost of processing payments in 1996–97 is estimated at £32,500.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department
  All payments for goods and services supplied to Treasury Solicitor's Department and my own office are processed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department's financial accounting and information system, FAIS, which uses Image software supplied by TABS Ltd.
  The majority of payments are made through Paymaster by payable order or, if to another Government Department, by transfer. In addition, the Department has recently implemented a facility which enables payments to be made via the bank automated clearing system. No sub-contractors are involved.
  The cost of processing payments in 1996–97 is estimated at £109,000.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will assess the advantages of the Crown Prosecution Service consulting victims of crime about the progress and status of their cases. [12478]

  The Attorney-General
  The victim's charter, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, sets out 27 standards of service that victims of crime can expect from criminal justice agencies including the Crown Prosecution service. These include best endeavours by the police to keep victims informed of significant developments in their case and asking about any fears the victim may have about further victimisation and details of loss, damage or injury. The Crown Prosecution service will taken this information, together with other known views of the victim, into account when making their decisions. Direct consultation between the CPS and victims is not normally appropriate since the victim will in most cases also be a prosecution witness.

  Two schemes aimed at improving arrangements for keeping victims informed of progress in their case and ensuring that their interests are taken into account are at present being evaluated. In addition, the independent review of the Crown Prosecution Service will also consider ways to enable the Crown Prosecution Service to inform victims of crime about prosecution decisions.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Parental Choice)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals have been made by parents on the grounds of non-admission of their child to the school of their choice, in each local education authority, in the latest year for which figures are available. [12795]
  673
  Mr. Byers
  The information requested by the hon. Member is set out in the following tables. More statistical details on admission appeals are in a departmental press notice published on 15 October. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  align="center">Number of admission appeals heard in maintained primary and secondary schools by local education authority area

  England

  1995–96

  Number of appeals heard

  Local Education Authority Area

  Primary

  Secondary

  England

  18,794

  25,206

  North-east

  652

  605

  Hartlepool3

  0

  15

  Middlesbrough3

  2

  0

  Redcar and Cleveland3

  0

  41

  Stockon on Tees3

  9

  65

  Durham

  297

  102

  Northumberland

  6

  66

  Gateshead

  48

  18

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  130

  141

  North Tyneside

  16

  2

  South Tyneside

  55

  26

  Sunderland

  89

  129

  North-west and Merseyside

  3,608

  4,433

  North west

  3,216

  3,353

  Cheshire

  62

  154

  Cumbria

  167

  49

  Bolton

  168

  178

  Bury

  150

  230

  Manchester

  486

  342

  Oldham

  37

  150

  Rochdale

  190

  87

  Salford

  135

  128

  Stockport

  94

  149

  Tameside

  105

  289

  Trafford

  139

  207

  Wigan

  87

  120

  Lancashire

  1,396

  1,270

  Merseyside

  392

  1,080

  Knowsley

  17

  0

  Liverpool

  186

  620

  St. Helens

  78

  43

  Sefton

  63

  123

  Wirral

  48

  294

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1,313

  2,942

  East Riding of Yorkshire3

  41

  163

  City of Kingston upon Hull3

  162

  160

  North East Lincolnshire3

  27

  81

  North Lincolnshire3

  14

  22

  City of York3

  7

  97

  North Yorkshire3

  85

  356

  Barnsley

  40

  31

  Doncaster

  28

  52

  Rotherham

  32

  82

  Sheffield

  85

  156

  Bradford

  156

  1,055

  Calderdale1

  62

  179

  Kirklees

  78

  86

  Leeds

  408

  388

  Wakefield

  88

  34

  East Midlands

  599

  853

  Derbyshire

  199

  193

  Leicestershire

  86

  193

  Lincolnshire

  83

  246

  674

  align="center">Number of admission appeals heard in maintained primary and secondary schools by local education authority area

  England

  1995–96

  Number of appeals heard

  Local Education Authority Area

  Primary

  Secondary

  Northamptonshire

  68

  161

  Nottinghamshire1

  163

  60

  West Midlands

  2,829

  3,331

  Hereford and Worcester

  31

  100

  Shropshire

  488

  247

  Staffordshire1

  44

  329

  Warwickshire

  313

  199

  Birmingham

  1,129

  1,503

  Coventry

  258

  271

  Dudley

  239

  203

  Sandwell

  242

  45

  Solihull

  41

  222

  Walsall

  10

  113

  Wolverhampton

  34

  99

  Eastern

  1,132

  1,691

  Bedfordshire

  134

  234

  Cambridgeshire2

  0

  104

  Essex

  252

  414

  Hertfordshire

  628

  821

  Norfolk

  53

  57

  Suffolk

  65

  61

  London

  5,383

  6,907

  Inner London

  1,354

  1,828

  City of London

  0

  4—

  Camden

  62

  252

  Greenwich

  159

  131

  Hackney

  140

  179

  Hammersmith and Fulham1

  18

  15

  Islington

  86

  91

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  23

  Lambeth1

  207

  101

  Lewisham

  303

  247

  Southwark

  162

  118

  Tower Hamlets

  101

  255

  Wandsworth

  105

  231

  Westminster

  11

  185

  Outer London

  4,029

  5,079

  Barking and Dagenham

  134

  91

  Barnet

  201

  426

  Bexley

  391

  88

  Brent

  62

  138

  Bromley

  223

  393

  Croydon2

  35

  134

  Ealing

  185

  154

  Enfield

  177

  812

  Haringey

  173

  248

  Harrow

  315

  47

  Havering

  166

  282

  Hillingdon

  213

  133

  Hounslow

  70

  358

  Kingston upon Thames

  58

  149

  Merton

  169

  41

  Newham1

  92

  244

  Redbridge

  371

  337

  Richmond upon Thames

  240

  199

  Sutton1

  220

  281

  Waltham Forest

  534

  524

  South-east

  1,705

  2,870

  Berkshire

  259

  736

  Buckinghamshire

  73

  501

  East Sussex

  100

  158

  Hampshire

  179

  148

  675

  align="center">Number of admission appeals heard in maintained primary and secondary schools by local education authority area

  England

  1995–96

  Number of appeals heard

  Local Education Authority Area

  Primary

  Secondary

  Isle of Wight

  5

  86

  Kent

  138

  602

  Oxfordshire

  121

  130

  Surrey

  719

  392

  West Sussex

  111

  117

  South-west

  1,573

  1,574

  Bath and NE Somerset3

  101

  175

  City of Bristol3

  294

  175

  North Somerset3

  35

  12

  South Gloucestershire3

  322

  267

  Cornwall

  174

  71

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  Devon

  117

  173

  Dorset

  195

  250

  Gloucestershire

  93

  256

  Somerset

  203

  63

  Wiltshire

  39

  132

  1 LEA maintained county and voluntary controlled and grant-maintained schools only.

  2 Grant-maintained schools only.

  3 From 1 April 1996.

  4 No schools of this type.

  Departmental Publications
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 17 July,Official Report, column 310, how much public money was spent by the Stationery Office in printing the White Paper "Excellence in schools". [12774]

  Mr. Byers
  None. The Stationery Office Limited is a private company, which printed "Excellence in Schools" at its own expense.

  Assisted Places (South Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils resident in South Gloucestershire unitary authority are in receipt of assisted places in the current financial year; and what estimate he has made of the cost of those places. [12829]

  Mr. Byers
  Information about the local education authority area from which assisted pupils originate is not collected centrally. One school, Tockington Manor school, situated in the South Gloucestershire unitary authority area participates in the assisted places scheme with four assisted pupils at an estimated total cost of £16,812 in academic year 1997–98.

  Jean Monnet Projects
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the(a) cost and (b) criteria are for selection of Jean Monnet projects in the United Kingdom; which chairs and professorships are
  676
  funded in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [12505]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The EC programme, "Jean Monnet: European Integration in University Studies", was established in 1989 on the initiative of the European Parliament. It is implemented by the European Commission without direct involvement on the part of EU member states.

  The Commission does not publish details of funding allocations to member states under this programme. The 1997 programme vademecum published by the European Commission lists the following criteria for selection:
  "The proposed project must deal specifically and entirely with the issue of European integration.
  All teaching activities carried out within the framework of a Jean Monnet Chair must fulfil this requirement.
  It must be an entirely new initiative, set up for the first time at the beginning of the 1997–98 academic year.
  Priority will be given to compulsory courses of study (this applies to the "Jean Monnet Chairs" and permanent courses) and to those reaching a wide audience.
  The proposed project should be clearly inserted into the university's teaching programme and correspond to the academic criteria of quality and feasibility.
  Priority will be given this year to the creation of new Jean Monnet Chairs and to the development of complementary initiatives which, in the framework of the 1990–92 Jean Monnet Chairs, will lead to the setting up of European centres of excellence.
  Selection will be made according to the applications submitted (all applications submitted will be taken into consideration) on the basis of the recommendations of the European University Council for the Jean Monnet Project."

  A list of Jean Monnet projects from 1990–97 published by the European Commission includes the following Jean Monnet Chairs in UK universities:

  University of Aberdeen

  European integration studies

  Robert Gordon University

  European public policy

  University of Wales Aberystwyth

  European integration

  University of Bath

  Politics of the EC

  European political union

  European integration and international business

  Queen's University Belfast

  European social policy

  History of European integration

  University of Birmingham

  European economics

  Constitution and administrative law of the EC

  Political economy of European integration

  University of Bradford

  European integration studies

  University of Sussex

  European studies

  The economics of European integration

  Contemporary European studies

  University of Bristol

  European Community studies

  677
  University of Cambridge

  European studies

  European Community law

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  Politics of European integration

  University of Wales—College of Cardiff

  Political economics with special reference to the European Community

  The politics of European economic integration

  University of Essex

  European politics

  European economic integration

  European Union law

  European political integration

  University of Ulster

  European law (2 Chairs)

  Coventry University

  European studies

  University of Warwick

  Law and politics of European integration

  University of Dundee

  European energy, environmental and economic law

  University of Durham

  European Community law

  University of Edinburgh

  European Community law

  Economics

  European law

  University of Glasgow

  European politics

  University of Strathclyde

  European law

  European public policy

  Economics of European integration

  University of Hull

  European integration

  EC social law

  Kingston University

  European law

  Lancaster University

  European Union law

  University of Leeds

  European Parliamentary studies

  European Union studies

  European law and integration

  European integration and international business management

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  European Community legal studies

  University of Leicester

  European Community law

  European economics studies

  European integration

  De Montfort University

  European economy

  University of Lincolnshire and Humberside

  European economic integration

  University of Liverpool

  European Union law

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  European Community politics

  Economics of the EC

  Queen Mary and Westfield College, London

  History of contemporary Europe

  678
  South Bank University

  The history and theory of European integration

  Thames Valley University

  Community studies

  University College London

  European economics and integration

  University of Greenwich

  Political economy of European integration

  University of North London

  European integration studies

  University of Westminster

  European integration studies

  Loughborough University of Technology

  European politics (2 Chairs)

  University of Manchester

  Politics of the new Europe

  Economics of European integration

  University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  European community law and policy

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  The law and policy of the European Community

  University of East Anglia

  European integration

  University of Nottingham

  European law

  University of Oxford

  European institutions and politics

  University of Paisley

  European integration and public policy

  University of Glamorgan

  European Community law

  University of Portsmouth

  European Community studies

  University of Reading

  The international dimension of European integration

  University of Salford

  History, politics and culture of the EC

  University of Sheffield

  Political science

  University of Southampton

  European integration

  Economics

  University of St Andrews

  European integration studies

  University of York

  European economics

  Student Grants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the annual saving to his Department from the abolition of mandatory student grants; and if these sums will be applied to higher education. [12688]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 July, mandatory student grants will be replaced with increased loans. In the short term, therefore, public expenditure on student support will not be reduced and there will be no savings on the basis of current accounting rules. Savings will be realised in the longer term as graduates begin to
  679
  make repayments and will be used to improve quality, standards and opportunities for all in further and higher education.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what training for persons working with special needs children in the classroom is recognised by his Department. [12483]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department's new standards for trainee teachers mean that all newly-qualified teachers will understand their responsibilities under the special educational needs code of practice, be capable of identifying children with SEN and be able to differentiate teaching practice appropriately.

  An additional qualification, approved by the Secretary of State, is mandatory for teachers of classes of visually-impaired and hearing-impaired children. The Green Paper on SEN, published last week, will address further issues about the professional development of teaching and non-teaching staff.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has evaluated into potential regional variations in provision for special needs children. [12482]

  Ms Morris
  The Department is aware, from its contact with parents, teachers, schools, voluntary organisations, local education authorities, and other service providers, that there are wide variations in the access to and the quality of provision available to pupils with special educational needs. That is why the Green Paper on SEN, "Excellence for All Children: meeting Special Educational Needs", which was published on 22 October, announced the Department's intention to:"work to secure a continuum of provision across the country, so that no matter where pupils live and what their needs, an appropriate level of support is available".

  We recognise that not all LEAs will be able to provide the full range of support needed to achieve this aim. The Green Paper proposes, therefore, the development of regional planning arrangements for some aspects of SEN provision. We shall be consulting widely on this and other proposals contained in the Green Paper throughout the autumn. In the meantime we are supporting a project, co-ordinated by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which is examining ways of securing effective regional co-ordination for certain aspects of SEN provision.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances parents with severely disabled children have the right to choose a non-mainstream education establishment outside the relevant local education authority area. [12484]

  Ms Morris
  Children with severe disabilities would normally be given a statement of special educational needs by their local education authority. The LEA must invite the parents of such children to name their preferred 680
  school when they are served a copy of the child's draft statement. The LEA is required to name the parents' preferred school—whether it is a mainstream or a special school—in the statement, provided it is appropriate to the child's age, ability, aptitude, and special educational needs, and is compatible with the interests of other children already in the school and with the efficient use of resources. If the parents' preferred school is maintained by another LEA, the home LEA must consult both the school governing body and the maintaining LEA of the school before naming the school in the statement. The school named in a child's statement is required to admit the child.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional resources he plans to put into higher education for each year of the planning period. [12577]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 23 September, a package of measures which will allow an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education in 1998–99. The level of funding for the higher education sector in 1999–2000 and beyond will be decided in the light of the Government's current comprehensive expenditure review.

  Universities (Tuition Fees)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what mechanism he plans to introduce to ensure that universities are not financially disadvantaged by accepting students who are exempt from tuition fees. [12603]

  Dr. Howells
  There will be no disincentive to universities to accept students who are assessed as not having to contribute to tuition. For 1998–99 local education authorities will conduct an assessment of income to determine how much students or their parents should contribute to the £1,000 tuition fee. The local education authority will pay the public contribution to the fee directly to the university or college where the student is enrolled. The university or college will be responsible for collecting the contribution from the student. Universities and colleges will retain these funds. The administrative arrangements for later years are still under consideration and will be announced later.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he plans to take in respect of the introduction of tuition fees to ensure that the resources provided to universities reflect the average tuition costs of the courses they provide relative to the national average, with particular reference to medicine. [12576]

  Dr. Howells
  Under our preferred funding option, full-time undergraduates will contribute up to £1,000 a year in tuition fees, depending on family income, with the balance being met from public funds. The maximum payable—£1,000—represents around a quarter of the
  681
  average annual cost of undergraduate courses. The remainder will be met from public funds through the teaching grant for universities and colleges allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council. The funding council's teaching grant allocations reflect each institution's student numbers and the relative average costs of providing courses in broad subject categories. Universities and college which provide medical courses will receive considerably more in teaching grant per medical student than the national average per student across all subjects.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average class size(a) in maintained schools in England and Wales, (b) for five, six and seven-year-olds in maintained schools in England and Wales, (c) for maintained primary schools in England and Wales and (d) for maintained secondary schools in England and Wales at (i) 1 May, (ii) 1 June and (iii) 1 July. [12569]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The average class size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in January 1997 were 27.5 and 21.7 respectively; the equivalent figure for key stage 1 classes in primary schools was 26.9.

  Information on class sizes in Wales is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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 subcontractors 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. [12562]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the functions relating to payment for goods and services supplied for which the Secretary of State's Department is responsible, the management systems purchased, all subcontractors involved in the work, co-operative arrangements with other Departments; and the costs of the systems and processes could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Parenthood Courses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to promote courses in parenthood. [12481]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As stated in the White Paper, "Excellence in Schools" published on 7 July, the Government intend that all secondary schools should have a role in teaching young people the skills of good parenting, both formally and through contact with good adult role models. The Department will be considering 682
  with teachers and others how this might best be achieved and what parenting education programmes should contain.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 25 July,Official Report, columns 768–69, on training and enterprise councils, how many starts were made for the two categories in each TEC area in each of the last three years. [12302]

  Dr. Howells
  Information for(a) the proportion endorsed as having special training needs on entering youth training, and (b) the proportion reporting that they had a disability on entering training for work, for each TEC area in England is given in the following tables.

  align="center">Proportion of starts with disabilities/special training needs on Youth Training and Training for Work

  align="right">Per cent.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  YT1

  TfW2

  YT1

  TfW2

  YT1

  TfW2

  Bedfordshire

  19

  11

  17

  15

  9

  24

  CAMBSTEC

  30

  19

  15

  17

  16

  24

  North Derbyshire

  32

  17

  25

  18

  27

  27

  South Derbyshire

  23

  15

  21

  16

  19

  18

  Leicestershire

  3

  18

  2

  17

  2

  32

  Lincolnshire

  18

  20

  21

  16

  15

  23

  Norfolk and Waveney

  23

  9

  20

  18

  22

  25

  Northamptonshire

  24

  20

  24

  26

  22

  26

  Greater Nottingham

  19

  14

  17

  18

  16

  23

  North Nottingham

  16

  14

  19

  14

  20

  26

  Greater Peterborough

  23

  13

  16

  24

  17

  23

  Suffolk

  12

  16

  12

  19

  8

  27

  Co. Durham

  33

  20

  32

  15

  34

  19

  Northumberland

  27

  17

  27

  18

  23

  19

  Teesside

  30

  11

  31

  10

  31

  14

  Tyneside

  29

  11

  25

  14

  24

  17

  Sunderland City

  37

  76

  31

  71

  26

  18

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  24

  9

  26

  13

  20

  18

  Bradford and District

  28

  18

  27

  15

  24

  17

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  20

  15

  22

  16

  23

  20

  Humberside

  25

  14

  23

  14

  28

  18

  Leeds

  20

  17

  14

  16

  27

  25

  Rotherham

  27

  20

  14

  17

  19

  24

  Sheffield

  27

  12

  19

  14

  18

  20

  Wakefield

  22

  16

  29

  23

  18

  31

  North Yorkshire

  16

  20

  28

  23

  36

  24

  Bolton/Bury

  17

  18

  19

  15

  16

  17

  NORMIDTEC

  27

  11

  26

  14

  23

  15

  South and East Cheshire

  39

  18

  15

  17

  12

  20

  Cumbria

  29

  15

  25

  17

  29

  17

  ELTEC

  16

  15

  16

  18

  26

  23

  LAWTEC

  19

  19

  22

  15

  30

  22

  Manchester

  18

  15

  17

  16

  18

  18

  Merseyside

  33

  11

  38

  11

  32

  13

  Oldham

  31

  16

  28

  13

  27

  14

  Rochdale

  31

  15

  23

  18

  28

  19

  St. Helens

  34

  7

  26

  9

  26

  13

  Stockport and High Peak

  15

  19

  12

  15

  12

  19

  METROTEC(Wigan)

  20

  14

  17

  14

  28

  14

  CEWTEC

  14

  11

  13

  13

  16

  17

  Birmingham

  20

  19

  15

  11

  12

  16

  Central England

  21

  17

  14

  23

  13

  32

  Coventry and Warwick

  23

  16

  23

  16

  22

  23

  Dudley

  7

  14

  10

  16

  10

  21

  HAWTEC (Hereford and Worcester)

  21

  20

  18

  20

  12

  29

  Sandwell

  16

  15

  15

  16

  15

  17

  Shropshire

  21

  21

  18

  19

  17

  25

  Staffordshire

  17

  15

  16

  13

  20

  20

  Walsall

  7

  11

  6

  16

  11

  24

  Wolverhampton

  16

  9

  13

  11

  16

  17

  WESTEC

  19

  12

  14

  13

  13

  25

  Devon and Cornwall

  n/a

  17

  n/a

  22

  n/a

  25

  Dorset

  23

  14

  24

  16

  24

  22

  683

  align="center">Proportion of starts with disabilities/special training needs on Youth Training and Training for Work

  align="right">Per cent.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  YT1

  TfW2

  YT1

  TfW2

  YT1

  TfW2

  Gloucester

  10

  19

  9

  22

  9

  28

  Somerset

  21

  17

  24

  22

  28

  23

  Wiltshire

  14

  18

  12

  21

  9

  30

  Essex

  7

  11

  7

  17

  7

  16

  Hampshire

  16

  12

  20

  14

  20

  19

  Heart of England

  9

  12

  10

  13

  11

  17

  Hertfordshire

  16

  13

  9

  16

  7

  22

  Wight Training and Enterprise

  26

  15

  26

  9

  26

  29

  Kent

  11

  16

  10

  19

  13

  22

  Milton Keynes

  22

  17

  18

  18

  18

  34

  Surrey

  14

  11

  11

  17

  8

  22

  Sussex

  10

  12

  6

  18

  5

  21

  Thames Valley

  11

  14

  7

  10

  9

  9

  AZTEC

  15

  7

  13

  11

  10

  14

  North London

  17

  12

  22

  7

  25

  9

  North West London

  21

  9

  16

  7

  17

  11

  CILNTEC

  34

  5

  28

  8

  31

  20

  CENTEC

  35

  5

  41

  7

  37

  11

  London East

  24

  8

  22

  10

  18

  16

  SOLOTEC

  24

  12

  23

  13

  24

  17

  West London

  31

  11

  14

  14

  15

  15

  South Thames

  4

  6

  47

  50

  0

  0

  CENTEC (South Thames)

  29

  12

  43

  8

  60

  17

  SOLOTEC (South Thames)

  10

  4

  20

  9

  n/a

  n/a

  CENTRIC

  n/a

  n/a

  9

  0

  1

  10

  England

  24

  15

  22

  16

  23

  19

  Notes:

  1. Those endorsed as having special training needs on entering Work Based Training for Young People.

  2. All people with disabilities entering Training for Work.

  Source:

  YT/TfW Trainee databases.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the annual cost of providing a child with five full days per week in a nursery school. [12690]

  Mr. Byers
  The 1995–96 estimated unit cost per full-time equivalent pupil in a maintained nursery school in England is £3,640.

  Students
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his target for the expansion of student numbers during the next five years; and what proportion of this target he expects to be achieved through part-time enrolment. [12578]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has made clear that the Government intend to set a target for an extra 500,000 people to enter further and higher education by 2002. We expect that part-time enrolment will contribute significantly to this total.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average salary of a teacher with five years' experience in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. [12691]

  Mr. Byers
  The average salary at 31 March 1996 for teachers in England and Wales with five years experience 684
  was £19,750 in maintained nursery and primary schools and £20,430 in maintained secondary schools.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the effects on part-time students of the reduction in permitted study hours from 21 to 16 per week to maintain jobseeker's allowance entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [12298]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have not received representations on this specific issue although my colleagues and I receive correspondence on a range of issues relating to the jobseeker's allowance rules.

  The Job seeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 introduced a definition of part-time students. Part-time study had not previously been defined in social security legislation. What is regarded as part-time depends on the type of course and where it is provided. In England and Wales, courses which are funded or part-funded by the further education funding councils of no more than 16 guided learning hours per week are regarded as part-time. This reflects the way in which the sector operates its part-time courses.

  We will be reviewing the job-seeker's allowance rules on education and training in the light of the jobseeker's allowance workskills pilots, which we expanded in September this year, and early experience of new deal measures for the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, how many claimants had their jobseeker's allowance reduced during 1996–97 for(a) two weeks and (b) four weeks for not attending or failing to complete (i) jobplan workshops, (ii) restart courses, (iii) workwise and worklink, (iv) 1-2-1, (v) project work and (vi) non-prescribed Government programmes where referral was under a jobseeker's direction. [7733]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [pursuant to his reply, 10 July 1997, c.558]: Unfortunately not all relevant data was included in the reply provided by Leigh Lewis, chief executive of the Employment Service.

  The third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the reply should have read as follows:
  "Unfortunately, information is not available in the form you request. However, it may be helpful if I explain that a total of 17,477 sanction decisions and opinions were given in 1996–97 for:
  refusal of a place on a training scheme or employment programme;
  failure to attend a place on a training scheme or employment programme;
  giving up a place on a training scheme or employment programme;
  losing a place on a training scheme or employment programme through misconduct; and,
  neglect to avail of a place on a training scheme or employment programme.

  685
  Schemes and programmes included in this definition are jobplan Workshops, Restart Courses, Workwise, Worklink, 1-2-1, and Project Work. Employment Service statistics do not identify the number of sanctions relating to each programme, nor do they differentiate between two and four week sanctions.
  The total number of sanction decisions and opinions given in 1996–97 for refusal or failure to carry out a Jobseeker's Direction was 225. It is not possible to say whether any of these related to employment programmes."

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 24 July,Official Report column 731, if she will list for each overseas visit the name of the Minister involved, the country visited and the dates of the visit. [11239]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The information requested is as follows. This includes updated information relating to visits since 2 May and details of a few visits inadvertently omitted from the earlier list.

  Minister

  Country of visit

  Date

  Visits made since 2 May 1997

  Lord Clinton Davis

  USA

  16–19 May

  South Africa

  14–19 June

  Thailand/Malaysia

  21–27 June

  France

  20–21 July

  Ireland

  24–25 July

  Mrs. Roche

  Brazil

  15–19 June

  Mr. Griffiths

  Greece

  25–30 June

  Mr. Battle

  Azerbaijan

  1–3 June

  Visits planned for the remainder of 1997

  President

  Australia/India

  n/a

  Lord Clinton-Davis

  Chile/Argentina

  Korea/Japan

  France

  Poland/Czech

  Republic/Hungary

  Spain

  Dubai/Yemen

  Visits undertaken by ministers in the year ending 1 May 1997

  President

  Russia

  27–30 May

  China/Bahrain

  30 August to 8 September

  Mexico/USA

  12–18 October

  India

  8–14 January

  Paris

  24–26 January

  Mr. Nelson

  Sweden

  6–7 May

  USA

  3–6 June

  Singapore

  8–11 July

  Canada

  9–12 September

  Taiwan

  22–26 September

  Oman

  10–15 October

  Germany

  23–25 October

  Zimbabwe

  4–8 November

  Yemen

  14–17 November

  Brazil/Argentina

  24–29 November

  Hungary/Poland

  16–17 January

  India

  12–17 March

  Germany

  13–14 April

  686

  Minister

  Country of visit

  Date

  Lord Fraser

  USA/Mexico

  5–11 May

  Qatar

  17–20 May

  Argentina/Brazil

  12–19 June

  Czech Republic

  10–12 July

  SE Asia

  16–26 September

  Peru/Bolivia

  4–8 October

  Turkey

  21–23 October

  Azerbaijan

  28–30 January

  Norway

  5–9 February

  Qatar/Bahrain

  25–27 February

  Australia

  10–16 March

  Tunisia

  14–15 April

  Mr. Ian Taylor

  Korea

  28 September to 3 October

  India

  22–29 October

  Mr. Page

  USA

  1–9 September

  Mr. John Taylor

  Mauritius

  21–28 November

  Political and Special Advisers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list(a) the names, (b) the salary, (c) the previous occupation and salary and (d) the terms and conditions of each political and special adviser in her Department; and what was the selection process used to appoint these persons. [2421]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Sheila Watson, formerly deputy director and consultant economist at the Centre for Local Economic Strategies, and Dan Corry, formerly senior Economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research, are paid special advisers in accordance with schedule 1—part 1—of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. They are both paid within a range of £24,349 to £73,484. Their salaries are negotiated individually and are confidential within this range. Details of this and of previous salaries are not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Lord Hollick, chief executive of United News and Media plc—UNM—is an unpaid special adviser, also in accordance with schedule 1—part 1—of the model contract, but excluding all those issues having implications for companies in the UNM group, notably in the broadcasting, publishing and exhibition industry given his continuing role as chief executive of UNM, and also excluding until 1 September issues affecting the aerospace sector given his previous position as a non-executive director of British Aerospace plc.

  All three appointments are personal appointments following consultation with the permanent secretary of my Department and the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions are placed on the issues her Department's special advisers are permitted to handle and the papers they can see. [10982]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Sheila Watson and Dan Corry are special advisers on the whole range of DTI business in accordance with schedule 1—part 1—of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers", a

  687
  copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Lord Hollick is an unpaid special adviser, who advises on a range of issues also in accordance with schedule 1—part 1—of the model contract, but excluding all those issues having implications for companies in the UNM Group, notably in the broadcasting, publishing and exhibition industry given his continuing role as chief executive of UNM, and also excluding until 1 September issues affecting the aerospace sector given his previous position as a non-executive director of British Aerospace plc.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the special advisers in her Department, the Minister to whom each is responsible, the subjects on which they advise and the number of advisers in her Department in the year up to 1 May. [5367]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Sheila Watson and Dan Corry are special advisers to me on the whole range of DTI business in accordance with schedule 1—part 1—of the "Model Contract for Special Advisers", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Lord Hollick is an unpaid special adviser who advises on a range of issues also in accordance with schedule 1—part 1—of the model contract, but excluding all those issues having implications for companies in the UNM Group notably in the broadcasting, publishing or exhibition industries given his continuing role as chief executive of the United News and Media plc, and also excluding until 1 September issues affecting the aerospace sector given his previous position as a non-executive director of British Aerospace plc. There was one special adviser in the DTI in the year up to 1 May.

  Environmental Assessments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on current Government environmental assessment requirements; [11970]

  (2) what guidance from her Department in respect of environmental impact assessments applies to (a) the Fionaven and Schiehallion fields operated by BP and (b) any proposed future development at the Atlantic Frontier; and if she will make a statement; [11974]

  (3) if she will list the existing independent arbitration arrangements to monitor environmental impact assessments in respect of development at the Atlantic Frontier; [11971]

  (4) what plans she has to conduct further environmental impact assessments in respect of development at the Atlantic Frontier; [11972]

  (5) pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), Official Report, 23 July, column 627, if she will set out the procedures currently in place to oversee environmental impact assessments in respect of future development at the Atlantic Frontier. [11969]

  Mr. Battle
  I will write to my hon. Friend very shortly and place a copy of the letters in the Library of the House.

  Arms Industry
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will conduct a survey of the revenue, employment and economic impact accruing from the United Kingdom arms industry. [11824]

  Mr. Battle
  I will write to the hon. Member very shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the premiums paid by United Kingdom defence companies in each of the last 10 years in respect of ECGD cover for defence exports from the United Kingdom. [10304]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: Premium earned in the defence sector for capital good and projects in the last 10 years is as follows:

  Year

  Premium earned £ million

  1986–87

  18.7

  1987–88

  8.9

  1988–89

  24.2

  1989–90

  13.1

  1990–91

  17.0

  1991–92

  10.7

  1992–93

  40.4

  1993–94

  37.7

  1994–95

  10.0

  1995–96

  23.7

  Figures are not yet available for 1996–97.

  Figures are not readily available for defence business on short terms of credit insured by ECGD prior to the privatisation of its Insurance Services Group in 1991.

  Technology-based Small Firms
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response her Department made to the Bank of England's October 1996 report on the financing of technology-based small firms. [12237]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon of Highbury, welcomed the Bank of England's report as a very useful contribution to pinpointing the issues associated with the financing of technology-based small firms when speaking in the House of Lords on 19 June 1997 in the debate on the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee's report "The Innovation-Exploitation Barrier".

  The Government are now discussing with the Bank of England the recommendations for action in the report.

  Engineering (West Midlands)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she plans to take to increase
  689
  employment opportunities in engineering in the west midlands. [10324]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: A key factor in increasing employment opportunities in the west midlands, as elsewhere, is a stable, long-term economic framework in which business can plan ahead. That is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already begun to provide. I also expect the consultation process I have launched with business as part of the Competitiveness UK initiative to help identify a range of ways in which engineering and other manufacturing business can improve their competitiveness for instance in the area of innovation, exports and the supply chain. The Government office for the west midlands will be participating fully in this with local partners.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Council of Ministers will take to enable it to judge whether proposed legislation will hold back the creation and development of small and medium enterprises under article 118 of the treaty of Amsterdam; and if she will make a statement. [11401]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The article will place a legal obligation on the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to ensure that directives adopted under it
  "avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized enterprises".
  If the Parliament and Council ignored this obligation when adopting a directive, the European Court of Justice could, on application, hold the directive to be invalid.

  Gas Installers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce a requirement for gas installers to have public liability insurance. [5434]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Government do not believe that a requirement for public liability insurance by gas installers would be effective in safeguarding consumers. Compulsory insurance would not, of itself, ensure that installers have the necessary skills, competence and hardware to enable them to carry out their duties effectively and safely, which is the first line of defence for consumers. Gas safety legislation requires all gas installers to be registered with the Council of Registered Gas Installers and requires all gas transporters to ensure that their staff undertaking gas safety work meet appropriate standards.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a public assessment of the impact of the multilateral agreement on investment and its impact on other Government policies will be carried out before the agreement is signed. [11863]

  Mrs. Roche
  I stressed in the Adjournment debate on the MAI on 23 July that there may be a role for a broad 690
  assessment of the impact of the MAI on the environment. Provided that any such proposal will be effective, we will be willing to support it. More broadly, the Government will be happy to participate in discussions on the impact of the agreement.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what oversight Parliament will have over the multilateral agreement on investment and its ratification. [11862]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 June 1997,Official Report, column 484.

  Motor Insurance Directive
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current status of proposals for a fourth EU motor directive on motor insurance. [12512]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Commission has adopted a proposal for a fourth Council directive on motor liability insurance and transmitted it to the Council and the European Parliament on 14 October 1997. The proposal is intended to assist people making claims for compensation for injury or loss arising from a road accident in another EU member state. It will be deposited in the House for Scrutiny in the normal way.

  Development Areas (State Aids)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are currently in force, and what additional procedures are under review, in order that she can discharge her overall responsibility for state aids in development areas under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972. [12978]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Under section 7 of the Industry Act, regional selective assistance is provided, on a discretionary basis, to investment projects which help to create or safeguard jobs in the designated assisted areas of Great Britain. No additional procedures are under review.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the patenting of human genes and tissues. [12840]

  Mr. Battle
  Interpretation of these criteria is based on jurisprudence.

  This Department is also currently undertaking a wide-ranging consultation on the EC's proposed directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, which could harmonise and clarify national laws on the patenting of biotechnological inventions, so reducing current uncertainty in this area of law in Europe. It is an important initiative in an area where issues of research, ethics and business all need to be taken into account.

  Travel Industry
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to make a decision on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into(a) the

  691
  proposed merger between P and O and Stena and (b) vertical integration in the travel industry. [12988]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave her on 2 July,Official Report, column 181. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the proposed merger between P and O and Stena will be published as soon as is practicable. I cannot comment on the likely publication date of the MMC report or its contents, which remain confidential until publication. Consultation is taking place with the European Commission.

  The MMC is required to report to the President of the Board of Trade on the travel trade by 6 November. The report will be published as soon as is practicable.

  Retail Newsagents
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from retail newsagents relating to their current trading conditions. [12535]

  Mr. Battle
  Representations have been received from a number of sources including the National Federation of Retail Newsagents and the Multiple Newsagents Association. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs has seen the NFRN, and I have also agreed to see it.

  Ministerial Endorsements
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances Ministers in her Department are entitled to endorse particular products and services. [12475]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In pursuit of Ministers' policy objectives, the DTI provides support to individual companies in a variety of ways, for example those seeking particular major business overseas, or through its small firms merit award for research and technology—SMART—to innovators. The DTI also makes use of a large number of contractors and advisers in the course of discharging its responsibilities. The existence of these arrangements, while not conferring a ministerial endorsement on the firms in question, is normally a matter of public record and the firms concerned routinely refer to them in their own publicity and promotional material.

  Patents (Engineering Products)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she is taking to prevent the import into

  Average annual household standard credit gas bills1,2: real 1995 prices3 including VAT

  £

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  British Gas supply zones5

  Main zone

  347

  322

  272

  310

  356

  418

  412

  404

  398

  378

  North

  323

  298

  256

  295

  352

  413

  407

  400

  395

  373

  Midlands

  317

  290

  250

  289

  349

  407

  402

  397

  391

  370

  692
  Britain and Europe of copies of British engineering products, made in breach of World Patent Organisation rules. [12756]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The importation into the European Union of goods which infringe trade marks, copyright and design rights is prohibited by virtue of Council Regulation 3295/94 provided that the relevant right holder has lodged an application for action with Customs and Excise, which is responsible in the UK for enforcement. The regulation fulfils the obligations of the UK and the EU under the World Trade Organisation—general agreement on tariffs and trade—formerly GATT agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights but its coverage of "counterfeit and pirated goods" does not embrace patent infringements.

  Trade Agreements
  Angela Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures her Department is taking to ensure consistency in Government policy towards international development within(a) bilateral trade agreements and (b) multilateral trade agreements. [12282]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and others to ensure that UK development policies are adequately reflected in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.

  Imports (Codes of Conduct)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has on codes of conduct for British companies importing produce from developing nations. [12314]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department is keen to work constructively with companies to establish voluntary codes of conduct with their suppliers both to improve the working conditions under which their products are made and to minimise any adverse impact on the environment. I welcome the moves many of our companies are making towards taking a more ethical stance in business and private sector initiatives such as the ethical trading initiative, which is supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Gas Bills
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the real level of average household bills for gas in Great Britain as a whole and for each region of Great Britain in each year since 1978. [12830]

  Mr. Battle
  The data are given in the table.
  693

  Average annual household standard credit gas bills1,2: real 1995 prices3 including VAT

  £

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Competitive regions

  Phase 1 (all customers)6,7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Phase 2a (all customers)6,7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Phase 2b (all customers)6,7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Great Britain average

  335

  309

  263

  302

  354

  414

  408

  402

  397

  375

  £

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  41997

  British Gas supply zones5

  Main zone

  351

  343

  341

  345

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North

  349

  343

  341

  345

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Midlands

  349

  343

  341

  345

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Competitive regions

  Phase 1 (all customers)6,7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  316

  301

  Phase 2a (all customers)6,7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  320

  308

  Phase 2b (all customers)6,7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  320

  306

  Great Britain average

  351

  343

  341

  345

  334

  309

  315

  327

  320

  309

  Source:

  Published tariffs.

  Notes:

  1 Based on equivalent of standard tariffs of British Gas and other supply companies. Based on an annual consumption of 17,600 kWh.

  2 Bills relate to the total bill received during the year which for credit consumers covers consumption in Q4 of the previous year to Q3 in year in question and includes all tariff changes and rebates.

  3 Real prices are cash prices adjusted for inflation as measured by the GDP market price deflator.

  4 1997 bills are provisional in that they only include tariff changes announced up to August 1997 and therefore may be subject to revision if tariff changes occur. The 1997 deflator is an estimate and as such revisions may lead to changes in the real terms bill.

  5 Supply zones are defined as Main: Scottish, North Thames, South Eastern, Eastern, Southern, Wales and South Western; North: North Eastern, North Western and Northern; Midlands: East and West.

  6 Bills for the various trial competition regions are calculated so as to include the fact that those customers who switched supplier would have received their gas, prior to switching, from British Gas and charged BG tariffs for this gas. For example, the Phase 2a and 2b bills are based on the assumption that customers who switched in Phase 2a received gas supply from the new supplier from 10 February 1997, and for Phase 2b from 7 March 1997. Prior to these dates the customers are taken to be on British Gas tariffs (e.g. national or main zone).

  7 Phase 1 covers Cornwall, Devon and Somerset, Phase 2a covers the County of Avon and Dorset and Phase 2b covers Kent and East and West Sussex.

  Electricity Bills
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the real level of average

  Average annual household standard credit electricity bills1,2,3,4: real 1995 prices5 including VAT

  £

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Eastern Electricity

  n/a

  n/a

  346

  n/a

  338

  321

  312

  306

  298

  n/a

  East Midlands Electricity

  n/a

  n/a

  335

  n/a

  338

  329

  320

  317

  316

  n/a

  London Electricity

  n/a

  n/a

  383

  n/a

  384

  364

  355

  342

  322

  n/a

  MANWEB

  n/a

  n/a

  364

  n/a

  369

  350

  342

  339

  334

  n/a

  Midlands Electricity

  n/a

  n/a

  346

  n/a

  354

  336

  327

  325

  316

  n/a

  Northern Electric

  n/a

  n/a

  355

  n/a

  354

  336

  329

  323

  312

  n/a

  NORWEB

  n/a

  n/a

  339

  n/a

  351

  333

  325

  322

  316

  n/a

  SEEBOARD

  n/a

  n/a

  350

  n/a

  351

  340

  330

  325

  312

  n/a

  Southern Electric

  n/a

  n/a

  337

  n/a

  347

  326

  317

  306

  298

  n/a

  SWALEC

  n/a

  n/a

  359

  n/a

  369

  350

  342

  334

  325

  n/a

  SWEB

  n/a

  n/a

  364

  n/a

  371

  348

  338

  333

  316

  n/a

  Yorkshire Electricity

  n/a

  n/a

  344

  n/a

  354

  333

  324

  320

  316

  n/a

  Hydro-Electric

  n/a

  n/a

  311

  n/a

  310

  295

  294

  289

  286

  n/a

  Scottish Power

  n/a

  n/a

  304

  n/a

  309

  293

  294

  290

  287

  n/a

  Great Britain average8

  n/a

  n/a

  348

  n/a

  352

  335

  325

  322

  313

  n/a

  694
  household bills for electricity in Great Britain as a whole and for each region of Great Britain in each year since 1978. [12833]

  Mr. Battle
  The available data are given in the table.
  695

  £

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19966

  1997

  Eastern Electricity

  291

  278

  280

  289

  297

  288

  275

  291

  282

  279

  East Midlands Electricity

  300

  287

  289

  297

  306

  298

  296

  300

  276

  258

  London Electricity

  311

  298

  301

  313

  318

  299

  304

  302

  290

  275

  MANWEB

  325

  311

  314

  322

  329

  321

  313

  323

  313

  288

  Midlands Electricity

  306

  293

  295

  304

  309

  297

  282

  294

  284

  267

  Northern Electric

  307

  294

  301

  315

  325

  302

  315

  308

  296

  279

  NORWEB

  300

  288

  290

  298

  304

  296

  291

  277

  273

  255

  SEEBOARD

  304

  291

  294

  303

  310

  300

  288

  289

  275

  259

  Southern Electric

  299

  287

  290

  299

  306

  298

  294

  294

  286

  260

  SWALEC

  318

  306

  314

  331

  337

  327

  330

  337

  325

  306

  SWEB

  319

  307

  313

  325

  333

  320

  326

  322

  309

  280

  Yorkshire Electricity

  308

  296

  300

  305

  309

  298

  284

  297

  277

  248

  Hydro-Electric

  280

  270

  276

  282

  289

  285

  285

  289

  284

  268

  Scottish Power

  280

  271

  276

  281

  285

  277

  290

  295

  289

  269

  Great Britain average8

  304

  291

  294

  303

  310

  298

  294

  298

  286

  269

  Source:

  Electricity Association—1980 to 1988; DTI—1989 to 1997, based on published tariffs and rebates from Public Electricity Suppliers.

  Notes:

  1 Based on an annual consumption of 3,300kWh.

  2 Bills from 1989 include all tariff changes and rebates but exclude discounts offered by some companies for prompt payment.

  3 Data from 1989 relates to the total bill received during the year, which for credit consumers covers consumption in Q4 of previous year to Q3 in year in question. Specific bills based on tariffs at 1 April are used pre 1989.

  4 Data pre 1989 and post 1988 are calculated on different basis and so are not directly comparable, but do reflect the overall trend.

  5 Real prices are cash prices adjusted for the effects of inflation as measured by the GDP market price deflator.

  6 1996 bills exclude the National Grid Discount. Customers in England and Wales received a one—off rebate of £54.60 (including VAT) during Q1 1996, following the flotation of the National Grid Company.

  7 1997 bills are provisional in that they are based on tariffs as at end August 1997. Information for the year may change (for example with rebates) further changes will occur as revisions are made to the current estimate of the 1997 GDP deflator.

  8 From 1989, averages are weighted by the number of domestic customers in 1994–95, prior to which data for each year are used.

  Telephone Bills
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the real level of average household telephone bills in Great Britain as a whole and for each region of Great Britain in each year since 1978. [12832]

  Mrs. Roche
  The first table gives an index of BT's telephone charges for the period of 1978–79 to 1988–89, since values for these years are not readily available. From 1988–89, BT started providing values for the median residential bill, which unlike the first set of figures relates to actual use and provides the most accurate view of an average bill. Values for these for 1988 to 1996 are shown in the second table. Statistics for each region of Great Britain are not available. Figures for other operators are not available.

  1. Index of quarterly telephone charges including VAT for the period 1978–79 to 1988–89

  Year

  Great Britain

  1978–79

  100

  1979–80

  92.6

  1980–81

  102.4

  1981–82

  110.9

  1982–83

  110.2

  1983–84

  105.6

  1984–85

  104.9

  1985–86

  105.3

  1986–87

  106.5

  1987–88

  104.4

  1988–89

  99.1

  696

  2. Quarterly median residential bill. Value in £ since 1989–90, excluding VAT, deflated by the all items retail prices index and expressed in 1995–96 prices

  £

  1989–90

  47.64

  1990–91

  48.15

  1991–92

  48.44

  1992–93

  48.99

  1993–94

  49.38

  1994–95

  50.55

  1995–96

  48.67

  1996–97

  47.69

  The above figures make it look as if prices have not changed in real terms since the late 1980s. These figures do not however take account of increased use of the telephone throughout the period.

  Supply Teachers
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will instigate an investigation into the businesses that supply supply-teaching staff. [12868]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department's employment agency standards inspectorate is responsible for regulating businesses providing supply teaching staff under the terms of the Employment Agencies Act 1973. In addition to investigating complaints, proactive checks of standards in this and other sectors of the industry are conducted from time to time. Any information about suspected breaches of the legislation should be brought to my Department's attention.

  Footwear Imports
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to impose anti-dumping duties on footwear imported from(a) Thailand, (b) Indonesia and (c) China; [12345]

  (2) what action the Government plan to take over the dumping in the United Kingdom of footwear from China, Indonesia and Thailand. [12288]

  Mrs. Roche
  Definitive anti-dumping measures may be imposed only by the Council of the European Union, acting on a recommendation from the European 698
  Commission and by a simple majority of member states. They then apply to all imports of the product from the countries concerned into the EU.

  In the case of leather and synthetic footwear from China, Indonesia and Thailand, it seems likely that the Council will agree to a minimum price regime in November. The duty payable would be equivalent to the difference between a minimum price and the import price, where the import price is lower.

  In the case of footwear with textile uppers from China and Indonesia, the Commission has put forward a proposal for duties on which discussions continue.

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of staffed beds projected in the published Lothian health acute strategy for(a) all hospitals in the Lothian health board area, (b) the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh trust and (c) the West Lothian NHS trust. [12748]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Lothian health board's 1993 public consultation document on the acute services strategy indicated that following implementation of the proposals there were expected to be 2,042 acute hospital beds—excluding obstetrics, special care baby unit, geriatric assessment and elderly continuing care beds—within the new royal infirmary, Western general and St. John's hospitals.

  Total projected bed numbers—excluding only continuing care elderly beds—for the new royal infirmary and St. John's hospital were 942 and 654 respectively.

  Since consultation, Lothian health board has continued to refine and revise its plans in consultation with the trusts, and relevant clinicians.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of staffed beds by specialty for the latest date for which information is available for(a) all hospitals in the Lothian health board area, (b) the Royal infirmary of Edinburgh trust and (c) the West Lothian NHS trust. [12747]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is set out in the table.

  NHSIS—Average available staffed beds; Lothian Health area: Quarter ending 30 June 19971

  Lothian Health area

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust

  West Lothian NHS trust

  All specialties

  4,928

  1,027

  842

  General Medicine

  407

  146

  101

  Cardiology

  56

  35

  —

  Communicable Diseases

  —

  —

  —

  Dermatology

  19

  19

  —

  Endocrinology and Diabetes

  3

  —

  —

  Gastroenterology

  45

  22

  2

  Geriatric Medicine

  1,143

  110

  161

  Medical Oncology

  18

  —

  —

  Medical Paediatrics

  115

  37

  30

  Nephrology

  33

  33

  —

  Neurology

  35

  —

  —

  Rehabilitation Medicine

  84

  —

  —

  Respiratory Medicine

  87

  56

  —

  Rheumatology

  14

  —

  —

  General Surgery

  98

  —

  56

  General Surgery (excluding Vascular)

  174

  106

  —

  Vascular Surgery

  38

  38

  —

  Anaesthetics

  29

  10

  4

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  33

  33

  —

  Thoracic Surgery

  26

  26

  —

  Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT)

  37

  24

  6

  Neurosurgery

  48

  —

  —

  Ophthalmology

  21

  20

  —

  Orthopaedics

  222

  172

  38

  Plastic Surgery

  51

  10

  32

  Surgical Paediatrics

  24

  —

  —

  Urology

  60

  —

  4

  Oral Surgery

  1

  —

  —

  700

  NHSIS—Average available staffed beds; Lothian Health area: Quarter ending 30 June 19971

  Lothian Health area

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS trust

  West Lothian NHS trust

  Paediatric Dentistry

  —

  —

  —

  GP Other than Obstetrics

  32

  —

  11

  Gynaecology

  69

  30

  17

  Obstetrics

  164

  83

  44

  General Psychiatry (Mental Illness)

  643

  —

  201

  Child Psychiatry

  —

  —

  —

  Adolescent Psychiatry

  6

  —

  6

  Forensic Psychiatry

  34

  —

  —

  Psychiatry of Old Age

  708

  —

  123

  Learning Disability (Mental Handicap)

  252

  —

  —

  Diagnostic Radiology

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical Oncology

  52

  —

  —

  Haematology

  28

  —

  4

  Unspecified2

  19

  16

  2

  1 Provisional

  2 Beds allocated as "unspecified" are not allocated to any particular specialty, and are lent to specialties, on demand.

  Lothian Health Board (Acute Services)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has assessed in respect of changes to the Lothian health acute services strategy; when proposed revisions will be made available for public consultation; and when the acute services strategy will be implemented in full. [12751]

  Mr. Galbraith
  It is estimated that Lothian health board's acute services strategy will be implemented in full once the new royal infirmary of Edinburgh is operating, currently expected to be in 2003. Scottish Office officials are in regular contact with Lothian health board and the relevant trusts so that they are aware of any revisions to the original proposals within the acute services strategy. I would be informed of, and assess appropriately, any revisions which substantially affected the objectives or implementation of the strategy.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make available a detailed analysis of the costs associated with specific projects of all proposed health service PFI contracts in Scotland. [12749]

  Mr. Galbraith
  NHS trusts responsible for individual PFI projects account for the costs they incur in pursuing them. The Scottish Office management executive estimates that costs should not be more than 1.5 per cent. of the capital value of the project.

WALES

  Devolution
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of
  701
  sending literature to every home in Wales on the Government's devolution proposals. [12722]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The cost was under £164,000.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the net cost of producing the White Paper on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly. [12717]

  Mr. Davies
  The net cost was £77,480.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many civil servants currently work in the Welsh Office; and how many he estimates will work in the Welsh Office after the implementation of his devolution proposals. [12689]

  Mr. Davies
  The Welsh Office currently employs 2,224 full-time equivalent staff. This figures includes 140 casual staff.

  My estimate of the number employed by the Welsh Office after establishment of the Welsh Assembly is set out in paragraph 4.45 of the White Paper "A Voice for Wales", copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

  align="center">MRSA and tuberculosis1

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Laboratory confirmed cases of MRSA in Wales2

  North Wales

  85

  69

  75

  64

  53

  60

  Dyfed Powys

  27

  17

  25

  28

  15

  27

  Morgannwg

  112

  104

  90

  141

  124

  110

  Bro Taf

  210

  202

  196

  196

  185

  89

  Gwent

  40

  44

  64

  94

  52

  49

  Wales

  474

  436

  450

  523

  429

  335

  Notifications of tuberculosis3

  North Wales

  —

  6

  9

  3

  5

  8

  Dyfed Powys

  3

  6

  6

  3

  —

  1

  Morgannwg

  6

  4

  5

  —

  1

  —

  Bro Taf

  7

  6

  8

  6

  1

  18

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  Wales

  16

  22

  28

  14

  8

  28

  Source:

  Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales (CDSC).

  1 Data for recent months are provisional.

  2 Patients identified with MRSA (ethicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus); only a proportion of these will have clinical illness. Screening and reporting practices may differ from hospital to hospital. The date is the date specimen was received by the hospital. The health authority is the area of residence of the patient or area of reporting laboratory if area of residence of patient is not known.

  3 Electronic reports to CDSC Wales.

  Performing Arts (Welsh Language)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to promote the use of the Welsh language in the performing arts; and if he will make a statement. [12914]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I am pleased that both the Arts Council of Wales and the Welsh Language Board support productions in Welsh—the Arts Council of Wales through its drama programmes, community touring scheme and

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 subcontractors 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. [12568]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The functions of the Welsh Office for which payments are made are set out in the Department's supply estimates and appropriation accounts—class XIV, votes 1 to 5. Payments for all functions are handled centrally and the cost of the central finance payment processing for 1996–97 is estimated at £492,000.

  MRSA and Tuberculosis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of(a) Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus and (b) tuberculosis have been recorded in each health authority district in Wales in each month since April 1997. [12910]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is given in the following table:

  other activities; the Welsh Language Board through support for the national eisteddfod of Wales and the Urdd national eisteddfod.

  Health Trusts (Deficits)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of(a) the current deficits and (b) the projected deficits of each health trust as a percentage of their budgets; and if he will make a statement. [12963]
  703
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  As at August 1997, the following trusts were reporting either a current and/or projected end of year deficit position(s):

  Current £000s

  Projected £000s

  Carmarthen

  (441)

  (1,659)

  Ceredigion

  (414)

  (1,401)

  East Glamorgan

  (142)

  (342)

  Glan y Mor

  (10)

  0

  Glan Hafren

  (265)

  0

  Gwent Community

  (473)

  66

  Llandough Hospital and Community

  (690)

  (1,648)

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  (447)

  (1,095)

  Morriston

  (1,309)

  (3,159)

  Nevill Hall and District

  (156)

  (509)

  North Glamorgan

  657

  (737)

  Pembs/Derwen

  (1,122)

  (2.697)

  Powys

  (646)

  (1,403)

  UHW Healthcare

  (954)

  (6,000)

  Wrexham

  (715)

  (737)

  The position of some trusts may improve as contract negotiations are completed, and these deficits project worse case scenarios. My officials are in discussion with trusts to ensure that these problems are being dealt with.

  It is not possible to provide the figures as a percentage of their budget, as most trusts have not yet reached contract agreement with all their purchasers.

  Transplants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) kidney, (b) heart, (c) lung, (d) heart and lung, (e) liver and (f) other transplants have been carried out in Wales in each of the last 10 years, broken down into health authority district; and if he will make a statement; [12912]

  (2) how many transplants involving artificial organs have been carried out in Wales in each of the last 10 years, broken down into health authority district; and if he will make a statement. [12913]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the number of transplants performed on Welsh residents by area of residence is not readily available. The number of transplants carried out in Wales as a whole is shown in the following table. Transplants of organs not listed in the table are not carried out in Wales. It should be noted that kidney transplants for residents of north Wales are normally carried out in Liverpool. No data are available centrally concerning artificial organ transplants.

  align="center">Organ transplants carried out in Wales

  Kidney

  Kidney/pancreas

  Whole pancreas

  Cornea

  1987

  71

  —

  3

  26

  1988

  70

  1

  2

  26

  1989

  65

  1

  1

  53

  1990

  62

  1

  —

  83

  1991

  79

  3

  —

  61

  1992

  65

  8

  —

  98

  1993

  65

  1

  —

  94

  1994

  94

  2

  —

  104

  1995

  81

  2

  —

  95

  1996

  90

  —

  —

  98

  Source:

  United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority.

  Organ Donors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate how many and what percentage of people in Wales (i) carry a donor card and (ii) are registered on the NHS organ donor register. [12911]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The number of people carrying organ donor cards is not known centrally. There were 390 thousand Welsh residents on the NHS organ donor register at 18 October 1997, about 13 per cent. of the population.

  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of(a) the running costs of and (b) the remuneration paid by each health authority in Wales in the current financial year.[12964]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This information is not presently available.

  Health authorities' costs and the remuneration paid to their chairmen, non-executive and executive directors in 1996–97 were as shown in the following table:

  align="right">£000

  Health authority costs

  Directors' remuneration

  Bro Taf

  11,807

  316

  Dyfed/Powys

  5,530

  394

  Gwent

  5,792

  310

  Morgannwy

  5,024

  413

  North Wales

  6,879

  400

  Total

  35,032

  1,833

  Source:

  Health authorities annual accounts.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Exports (South Africa)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total percentage reduction agreed since August 1996 by the European Commission in the level of beef export refunds to South Africa. [12332]

  Mr. Rooker
  The level of export refund EU beef exports received is dependant not only on the destination, but also the type of cut. Since August 1996, the level of export refunds on beef exports to South Africa has fallen by between 35 per cent. and 43 per cent.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the report on the effects of EU beef export subsidies on the Southern African livestock economy commissioned by the South African Government from Natal university. [12333]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are aware of the report and have noted its contents. As mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend's previous question, there has already been a large reduction in the level of refunds paid on beef exports to South Africa. We believe however that it is still too early to assess the full impact of these reductions.
  705
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when will the EU Council of Ministers next debate beef export subsidies to South Africa; and if he will make a statement. [12334]

  Mr. Rooker
  We know of no current plans to discuss beef export refunds to South Africa in the Agriculture Council.

  EU-Senegal Fisheries Agreement
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the nationality of the fishermen and their projected generated financial gain covered in the European Union-Senegal fisheries agreement; what is the cost to the European Union; what is the financial share of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's position regarding fishing rights held by the European Union in third-party waters. [12500]

  Mr. Morley
  The fishing opportunities available under the EC-Senegal fisheries agreement are allocated mainly to fishermen from France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece who have traditionally fished in Senegalese waters. However, new pelagic fishing opportunities obtained under the new protocol have not been allocated to specific member states. We have no information on the projected financial gain by individual fishermen.

  The cost of the agreement to the EU budget is 12 mecu per annum. The UK contributes some 15 per cent. of this amount.

  The Government consider fisheries agreements with third countries to be important in safeguarding traditional fishing grounds for EU fishermen. The agreements with Norway and other North Atlantic countries, for example, are important to the UK distant water fleet. However, the Government wish to ensure that fisheries agreements as a whole provide value for money, promote sustainable fisheries and are coherent with general EU development policy.

  Dietary Supplements
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the reports which he received from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Goods and the Environment and the Food Advisory Committee before he made his decision of 4 July to limit the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements. [12310]

  Mr. Rooker
  The statements from the Committee on Toxicology of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the Food Advisory Committee have been placed in the Library of the House. They have been available in the public domain since 4 July.

  Fishing Fleet
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the integration of Agenda 2000 countries into the European Union on the United Kingdom fishing fleet. [12526]
  706
  Mr. Morley
  It will not be possible to carry out a detailed assessment of the impact on the UK fishing fleet of integrating new countries into the EU until we know which countries are to be admitted and the accession terms proposed. However, those applicant countries which have marine fishing interests generally fish in areas, such as the Baltic sea, where the UK fleet is not active. Previous new entrants have, as part of their accession terms, been allocated quotas reflecting the areas and stocks for which they have historic track records. The Government will wish to ensure that similar conditions apply to further new entrants.

  Scientific Committees
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department approved the establishment of additional scientific committees as announced in European Union document ip/97/679; how those committees will co-ordinate their work with committees responsible to his Department; and if he will make a statement. [12744]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission has recently transferred all of its advisory scientific committees to Directorate General XXIV which deals with consumer policy and consumer health protection. It is now in the process of restructuring the committees, the six existing committees being replaced by eight new committees which will deal respectively with food; animal nutrition; animal health and animal welfare; veterinary public health; plants; cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers; toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment; and medical products and medical devices. A restructured overarching committee, the Scientific Steering Committee, is also being set up, the membership consisting of the chairmen of the eight scientific committees and eight additional scientists.

  The reorganisation of the committee structure is entirely a matter for the European Commission, but in so far as the intention is to provide a more effective advisory system we are in support, though it remains to be seen how the new arrangements will operate in practice. Advice on food safety issues in the UK continues to be provided by the UK advisory committees, although increasingly legislation on food safety is based on agreements reached in Brussels.

  Officials have been in touch with officials in DG XXIV and will continue working to ensure that there is effective interchange of information between the EU and ourselves. We also keep in close touch with day to day developments in the EU scientific committees via the UK contact points, and EU committees will be well aware of the conclusions reached in UK discussions.

  EU Expenditure
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a breakdown of expenditure by country under European Union document 9201/97. [12593]

  Mr. Rooker
  Document 9201/97 concerns a Commission proposal to augment funding for the quality beef promotion scheme by up to 20 mecu. However, as this proposal has not yet been agreed by the Council, expenditure has not yet been allocated. Should the
  707
  proposal be adopted, it is expected that a breakdown of expenditure by sponsoring member state and by the implementing trade or inter-trade organisation, will be available in due course. Organisations may, however, operate in more than one member state.

  Aerial Spraying
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the regulations governing the aerial spraying of bracken to ensure the maximum safety and convenience of residents. [12761]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986 include general requirements for the use of pesticides, including aerial spraying, and were updated earlier this year. The amending regulations introduced a specific requirement on all users of pesticides to confine the application of the pesticide to the land, crop, structure material or other area intended to be treated. These regulations place obligations on the aerial spray operator to give notice of the intended aerial application to the chief health officer for the district; hospitals, schools and other institutions within 150 m of the intended flight path; and occupants or their agents of all property within 25 m of the boundary of the land to which the pesticide is to be applied.

  These requirements will be emphasised in the revised code of practice for the safe use of pesticides on farms and holdings which will be published early in the new year.

  BSE
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish figures to show the incidence of BSE(a) in mainland Britain and (b) in the Channel Islands among (i) Jersey cows and (ii) other breeds. [12764]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of confirmed cases of BSE in Jersey and non-Jersey cattle in Great Britain as at 21 October 1997 are as follows:

  Number

  Jersey

  1,472

  Jersey cross breeds

  147

  Non-Jersey

  167,640

  Total

  169,259

  These figures include cases reported before the 1988 BSE order.

  Channel Islands authorities compile their own BSE statistics, which they supply to MAFF. My Department receives only cumulative figures of confirmed cases, the most recent being:

  Number

  As at

  Jersey

  132

  10 October 1997

  Guernsey

  648

  19 October 1997

  Alderney

  2

  26 June 1995

  708
  For logistical reasons not all suspects slaughtered on Guernsey have been subjected to laboratory confirmation of disease. Some have been confirmed solely on the basis of clinical signs.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instigate a new public inquiry into the BSE affair. [12967]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are considering the question of a public inquiry into BSE very carefully and will make an announcement when they have reached a conclusion.

  Factory-farmed Produce
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that factory-farmed produce is identifiable by package labelling; and if he will make a statement. [12930]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no plans at present to make such information a mandatory part of the food label, but we are consulting interested parties on the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendation for compulsory labelling of egg production systems.

  Genetically Engineered Food
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has undertaken into the allergenic potential of genetically engineered food; and if he will make a statement. [12896]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) introduced an EU wide pre-market approval system for genetically modified foods. In the UK the independent Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes assesses the safety of such foods paying particular attention to their allergenic potential. This Department funds research work worth some £1 million per year, to underpin the ACNFP's safety assessment procedures. It is standard practice to encourage the publication of results from such research.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Bull Bars
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will advocate an EU-wide ban on bull bars during the British presidency of the Council of Transport Ministers in January 1998. [12321]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK has already made its opposition to aggressive bull bars very clear to our European partners, and has strongly supported the Commission's proposal for tackling them through an amendment to the external projections directive. However, the opposition to this initiative from certain member states has demonstrated that if we are to tackle the bull bar problem quickly we will have to take action at a national, rather than a European, level.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he intends to take to control the use of bull bars. [12322]
  709
  Ms Jackson
  We have concluded that we must look seriously at tackling aggressive bull bars at a national level. We are currently consulting widely on options for action with the aim of identifying a way forward that is both practicable and effective.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, in assessing housing properties for compulsory competitive tendering purposes, the 4,000 de minimis threshold will apply to properties managed via management agreements, by(a) estate management boards, and (b) tenant management organisations. [12008]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing announced on 25 July that the proposed de minimis threshold for housing management compulsory competitive tendering should be stock based at 4,000 properties. There are no proposals to make any changes to the current definition of a local authority's housing stock. The definition as it stands includes most stock which a local authority provides under part II of the Housing Act 1985. Only hostels and flats which have been bought under the right-to-buy scheme are excluded. Therefore any properties which are managed by either estate management boards or tenant management organisations will count towards the de minimis calculation.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to end the capping of local authority spending. [12009]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We remain committed to the abolition of crude and universal capping as soon as possible. We are now working on a wide range of proposals to improve local accountability which will allow us to fulfil this commitment.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has(a) to exclude supplementary credit approvals under the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approval) Bill from capping rates and (b) to allow SCAs to be used in respect of private housing stock. [12010]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Ministers have yet to take decisions on capping arrangements for 1998–99. We anticipate making an announcement later in the year.

  Guidance to local authorities on expenditure under the capital receipts initiative was issued on 2 October. This sets out how the additional resources released under the initiative can be applied. In the first instance, it will be for individual local authorities to identify local needs and priorities and to draw up strategies to tackle them. Where private sector renewal is such a priority, capital receipts initiative resources will be available to support remedial works.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to allow the private finance initiative to 710
  be used for housing purposes; and what account is taken of private finance initiative projects in relation to the capping of local government expenditure. [12011]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are already developing pilot schemes for the provision of non housing revenue account housing under PFI. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing recently agreed to the launch of a pathfinder project for the use of the PFI in housing revenue account housing during the third reading of the Local Government Contracts Bill.Official Report, 8 July, column 831. In the context of the 1997–98 capping round, the previous Administration adjusted the capping regime to allow amounts of revenue support stemming from private finance credits to be spent. We will announce capping guidelines for 1998–99 later in the autumn. In the longer term, we have repeated our commitment to end crude and universal capping as soon as possible.

  European Environment Agency
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the definition of(a) media-oriented and (b) source-oriented monitoring as named as an element of the 1997 work programme for the European Environment Agency; what the projects involved are; how much has been allocated to each; and if he will make a statement. [12508]

  Angela Eagle
  In the context of the European Environment Agency's work programme, media-oriented monitoring concerns the assessment of the state and trends of the environment by looking at the quality of the various areas of the environment—air, water, nature and soil. Source-oriented monitoring provides an assessment of the pressures on the environment by way of measuring the levels of pollution by source.

  The EEA's work programme for 1997 gives an estimated total budget allocation of 2.75 million ecu for the media-oriented monitoring projects, and 800,000 ecu for the source-oriented monitoring projects. The two tables provide a more detailed breakdown by project. A number of UK organisations are partners in some of the consortia carrying out elements of this work programme.

  align="center">Media oriented monitoring. Assessment of the state and trends of the environment

  Project number

  Project title

  Budget 000 ecu

  MW3

  Design of a freshwater monitoring network

  540

  MW4

  European freshwater monitoring network and databases

  MW5

  Water resources evaluation

  MW6

  Information on coastal and marine water quality

  340

  MW7

  Coastal pressure and state indicators

  MA2

  European air quality monitoring network and databases—establishment and maintenance

  390

  MA3

  Harmonisation in the use of models for ambient air quality and pollution dispersion/transport

  MA4

  Ambient noise levels and exposure

  50

  MN2

  State and trends of biodiversity in Europe

  590

  MN3

  Support to NATURA 2000 network

  MN4

  Landcover—ecological monitoring

  390

  MN5

  Forest conditions—monitoring network and databases

  60

  711

  align="center">Media oriented monitoring. Assessment of the state and trends of the environment

  Project number

  Project title

  Budget 000 ecu

  MS2

  Soil characteristics, monitoring and mapping

  390

  MS3

  Methodologies for inventories of contaminated sites

  Total

  2,750

  align="center">Source oriented monitoring. Assessment of pressures

  Project number

  Project title

  Budget 000 ecu

  SG1

  Common tools for emissions and waste integrated inventories

  50

  SA2

  Air emissions inventories '90 and '94

  400

  SW1

  Emissions to water—general approach and assessment

  DGXI funded

  SWS2

  Waste—pilot projects for further assessments of inventories and analysis of main flows

  350

  Total

  800

  A43
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average daily flow of traffic on the A43 through Silverstone over each of the last 10 years; what proportion of this flow is represented by heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [12262]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Highways Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 27 October 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent question about traffic on the A43 through Silverstone over the past ten years.
  The annual average daily flow at Silverstone in 1996 was 20,500 vehicles with 17 per cent. commercial vehicles including buses. Traffic is regularly monitored on A43 between Wood Burcote turn and the A413 (Annex A). Figures for that site are shown at Annex B.
  A comparison of the 1996 figures show that the flow at the monitoring site is some 17 per cent. higher than the flow through Silverstone.

  align="center">Ten year average daily traffic flow figures. A43 through Silverstone

  Year

  AADF

  Per cent. commercial AADF

  1987

  17,400

  18

  1988

  19,200

  —

  1989

  19,700

  —

  1990

  21,100

  16

  1991

  18,400

  15

  1992

  23,400

  —

  1993

  22,700

  16

  1994

  22,200

  —

  1995

  22,300

  —

  1996

  24,100

  15

  Broadcasting Masts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local authorities in connection with the determination of planning applications for broadcasting masts and transmitting stations. [12494]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Current planning policy guidance on broadcasting masts and transmitting stations is set out in planning policy guidance note 8—PPG8 revised December 1992. That guidance reflects the importance we attach to keeping to a minimum the number of broadcasting and telecommunications masts, and of sites for such installations, while ensuring that there is an effective national broadcasting and telecommunications network.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the creation of conservation areas and nature reserves in Britain; and what proposals he has to encourage local authorities towards the creation and management of such sites. [12498]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the conservation agencies have powers to declare national nature reserves. There are now 188 NNRs in England. English Nature, the Government's scientific adviser, has been actively seeking to involve local authorities and other approved bodies in the management of NNRs. It has also assisted local authorities in increasing the number of local nature reserves from 288 in 1991 to 566 in 1997.

  Motability (Fuel Tax Exemptions)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a fuel tax exemption for those disabled people who have motability vehicles. [12299]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no plans to introduce a fuel tax exemption for those disabled people who have motability vehicles. Such a measure would be administratively expensive and impractical, and there are better ways of assisting disabled people with their transport costs. The main way is through the Government's provision of the disability living allowance which was introduced in 1992 to help people with the extra costs which arise from their care and mobility needs. DLA is increased every year, by law, by the rate of inflation, as measured by the movement in the retail prices index which takes account of the cost of petrol as well as the cost of taxi fares and other motoring costs.

  Road Bridges
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those requirements of European legislation on axle weights which require strengthening of road bridges; and the cost of strengthening road bridges to the required standard. [12461]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  When the United Kingdom's derogation from certain of the European Community weight limits in directive 96/53/EEC, previously
  713
  85/3/EEC, expires on 31 December 1998, we will allow an increase in the drive axle weight limit for vehicles on international journeys form 10.5 to 11.5 tonnes.

  For the trunk road network the Highways Agency has an assessment and strengthening programme aimed at ensuring all the bridges meet or are brought up to meet modern standards. The latest estimate of the cost of this programme is £450 million and includes some additional costs for meeting the slightly higher requirements of European legislation. Figures are not available to estimate this additional cost.

  Until local authorities have completed the assessment of their bridge stock, it will not be possible to determine accurately the cost of strengthening bridges on local roads to enable them also to carry the heavier 40 tonne lorries. It has, however, been made clear to local authorities that not all bridges on all roads need to carry such vehicles.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the possibility of using redundant North sea oil and gas drilling platforms in the construction of new road bridges. [12286]

  Ms Jackson
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Highways Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Lawrie Haynes. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Bob Blizzard, dated 27 October 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Question on the possibility of using redundant North Sea oil and gas drilling platforms in the construction of new bridges.
  Most new bridges are constructed of steel, (steel) reinforced concrete, or a combination of both. The exact type of bridge is usually dictated by cost, aesthetics, the road geometry and the loads that the bridge will have to carry. To achieve the most effective design, the shape and strength of the various components are specifically designed and it is not often that "second hand" components can be incorporated without significant cost. However, second-hand materials can often be used quite economically after they have been recycled. For example, all the steel bars produced in the UK for reinforced concrete are made from recycled scrap steel.
  Crushed concrete can be used again as an aggregate for concrete but generally it is not suitable for making the high strength concrete needed in bridges. Recycled concrete from drilling platforms is also likely to be contaminated with salt which will cause the steel reinforcement to corrode unless special measures are taken.
  It is therefore difficult to see how steel or concrete from redundant North Sea oil and gas drilling platforms could be used economically, directly in new bridges. However, salvaged steel from North Sea platforms has already been used in temporary works and we are continuing to carry out research into finding more ways of using recycled materials including concrete.

  EU Life Environment
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what United Kingdom projects are funded by European Union Life Environment moneys; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [12506]

  Angela Eagle
  Since the inception of the European Union LIFE programme in 1992, Life Environment, which is administered by the European Commission, has supported 70 projects in the United Kingdom, providing total funding of around 35 million.
  714
  Under Phase 2 of the LIFE programme, which began last year and runs until 1999, 16 United Kingdom projects have so far successfully applied for funding. Theses projects, and the Community funding they have been awarded, are as listed.

  Proposer

  Title of project

  Ecu

  1996

  Dorset County Council

  Coastal Zone Management: development of a strategy for an open coast

  199,361

  BIP Group Ltd

  The use of a novel biological treatment for reductio of VOC emissions to air

  149,377

  University of Ulster

  Implementing alternative strategies for sustainable beach and dune management

  630,403

  City of Edinburgh

  The Forth Estuary: a demonstration of effective integrated costal zone management

  143,617

  Buckinghamshire College

  Tourfor: integrated tourism with the development of forest resources

  325,122

  BOC Plc

  The sanitisation and recirculation of water in the processing of poultry

  228,097

  Isle of Wight Council

  Demonstration project on integrated costal zone management

  151,809

  1997

  Arun District Council

  An investigation into the survival of sewage indicating organisms discharged to the marine environment 159,883

  London Borough of Southwark

  Local Indicators to Monitor Urban Sustainability (LITMUS)

  498,966

  London Borough of Camden

  'Plusbus Interactive'—a scheme for access and availability of special transport for all

  937,443

  Subterra Ltd

  An environmentally friendly repair system for leaking sewage or rainwater/surface drainage pipes

  274,546

  SATRA

  Recycling of waste leather from footwear and other industries

  411,861

  Highland Council

  Area sustainability strategies for peripheral rural areas

  492,458

  BIP Group Ltd.

  The use of a novel absorption process for the reduction of VOC emissions to air

  296,275

  Isle of Wight Council

  Coastal change, Climate and Instability

  610,124

  Broads Authority

  New Wetlands Harvest—sustainable wetlands management

  491,910

  Asbestos
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government are taking to encourage the replacement of asbestos in industrial applications. [12285]
  715
  Angela Eagle
  All uses of blue and brown asbestos and certain uses of white asbestos are prohibited. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, as amended in 1992, require that employers substitute safer alternatives instead of using asbestos where it is practicable to do so.

  The Government are determined to make current legislation more effective and to introduce new measures, including extending the present bans. The advice of the Health and Safety Commission is being sought on all these matters.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will strengthen protection and conservation measures for sites of special scientific interest. [12499]

  Angela Eagle
  We are actively taking forward the commitment to increase protection for wildlife and have proposed a review of the mechanisms for protection and maintaining SSSIs. Officials are currently undertaking preliminary discussions on this important issue.

  Birds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to reverse the decline of previously common hedgerow, woodland and farmland species of bird life. [12497]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have taken positive steps to help reverse the decline in common hedgerow, woodland and farmland bird species. They include:A biodiversity steering group report, published in December 1995, contained costed action plans for bird species, including the song thrush and skylark, and costed habitat action plans for cereal field margins, lowland wet grassland and other important bird habitats. Further costed action plans for other important bird habitats and song bird species are being prepared.
  The Government are working with conservation and farming organisations to improve the efficiency and targeting of agri-environmental schemes which encourage environmentally sensitive farming.
  MAFF has commissioned research into the relationship between farming practices over the last 20 years and populations of farmland birds. MAFF also funds research on establishment and maintenance of hedgerows and has large programmes to support agri-environment schemes and to help promote minimisation of the use of pesticides.
  A comprehensive literature review, recently published, considered the possible indirect effect of pesticides on farmland birds. Further research is planned in this area.
  An approval system is in place for new pesticides, and existing pesticides are subject to an EU review programme. Older pesticides are therefore reviewed against modem standards.
  A pesticide's forum, including agricultural, environmental, food and other groups, has recently published an action plan for the responsible use of pesticides.
  A group has been set up to recommend ways of strengthening the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, so that they give better protection for hedgerows. The group is working towards making its recommendations by the end of December this year.

  Railtrack (Radio Aerial Masts)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he had made of the advantages and disadvantages of Railtrack retaining its exemption from planning controls with particular reference to radio aerial masts. [12531]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is aware of concerns which have been expressed about the use of permitted development rights by statutory undertakers such as Railtrack. Last year we 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.

  European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose and (b) annual budget of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. [12527]

  Angela Eagle
  The purpose of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work is to promote improvements in health and safety by collecting and disseminating available technical, scientific and economic information, of relevance to health and safety, throughout the Community and more widely.

  The annual budget for the agency for 1997 is 4 million ecu, around £2.9 million.

  Work-related Casualties
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to reduce the number of deaths and serious accidents at work; and if he will make a statement on the factors underlying recent increases in work-related casualties. [12479]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government share concern about the recent increase in workplace accidents. The reasons for the increase are not straightforward and the Health and Safety Commission is conducting further analysis to identify the main causes and influences. The HSC's plan of work for 1997–98 sets out what the Health and Safety Commission and Health and Safety Executive are doing to promote health and safety. But the main responsibility lies with employers and others in industry—they have a legal obligation to manage health and safety properly and they need to do better.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) employees and (b) self-employed people (i) were killed or (ii) received major injuries at the workplace in each year since 1993. [12809]

  Angela Eagle
  The table shows the total number of fatal and major injuries to employees and self employed people reported to enforcing authorities between 1992–93 and 1996–97—years commencing 1 April.
  717

  Year

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Fatal injuries

  1992–93

  276

  63

  1993–94

  245

  51

  1994–95

  191

  81

  1995–96

  209

  49

  1996–971

  210

  77

  Major injuries

  1992–93

  16,938

  1,115

  1993–94

  16,705

  1,274

  1994–95

  17,041

  1,313

  1995–96

  16,568

  1,166

  1996–971

  227,360

  21,311

  1 Provisional. Finalised figures will be available in April 1998.

  2 Definition of major injury extended when The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 came into force on 1 April 1996.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications, by region, have been referred to the Sports Council for England under the terms of the General Development Procedure Order 1995 as amended with effect from 5 August 1996. [12707]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Between 5 August 1996 and 31 July 1997, 288 applications were referred to the English Sports Council as a statutory consultee. The English Sports Council has provided the following breakdown of this total, based on their regions:

  Number

  East

  42

  East Midlands

  42

  Greater London

  34

  North

  20

  North-West

  49

  South

  25

  South-East

  11

  South-West

  34

  West Midlands

  17

  Yorkshire

  14

  Planning Legislation
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the operation of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and the Town and Country Planning (Demolition-Description of Buildings) Direction 1995; and if he will make a statement. [12706]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no immediate plans for a review of the operation of either the order or the direction. However, we keep under consideration the need for amendments to these documents in the light of representations received on various issues. Any changes which we proposed introducing to either the permitted development order or the demolition direction would be the subject of consultation.

  Energy and Environmental Education
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his 718
  Department has to review its relationship with non-governmental organisations involved in energy and environmental education. [12545]

  Angela Eagle
  We propose to develop the constructive relationship we have with the many non-governmental organisations involved in energy and environmental education. In particular we look forward to improving co-ordination of initiatives through the panel on sustainable development education which we are setting up.

  PVC
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the suitability of PVC for use in construction of publicly funded buildings. [12594]

  Mr. Raynsford
  One of the potential problems with the use of PVC materials in construction is the possibility of rapid fire spread, and guidance is given on this aspect in Approved Document B (Fire Safety) to the Building Regulations 1991. These regulations make no distinction between publicly funded buildings and any other buildings.

  In the case of fire, building regulations are intended to ensure that a reasonable standard of safety is provided. The protection of property, including the building itself, may require additional measures which are the responsibility of either the building owner or insurers to specify on an individual basis and would be dependent on the particular risk associated with the proposed use of the building.

  The approved document recognises that the choice of materials for walls and ceilings can significantly affect the spread of a fire and its rate of growth, even though they may not be the materials first ignited. Guidance is therefore given in the approved document on both the location and spacing of thermoplastic and other materials that do not satisfy the performance criteria of British Standard fire tests.

  With regard to the general use of PVC in the construction of buildings my Department has consulted with the Department of Health, the Health and Safety Executive and the Building Research Establishment. It was concluded from this consultation that there are no known serious hazards to human health or the environment associated with the use of PVC.

  Road Repairs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to raise the minimum acceptable standards of repair for private contractors digging up roads in the United Kingdom in order to lay pipes and cables. [12573]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The standards to be followed by undertakers when reinstating the highway on completion of their works in the street are set out in a national specification published under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. The undertaker concerned is fully responsible for carrying out the work in compliance with
  719
  the specification, and failure to comply with the reinstatement standards is a criminal offence which can attract a penalty of up to £1,000.

  The reinstatement specification is currently under review by the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee, which represents the main practitioners. The Government will give very careful consideration to any recommendations which the committee makes.

  Planning Appeals (Tennis)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning appeals have been dealt with by his Department during the last 10 years in respect of housing or commercial development on land in use or formerly in use for tennis or in connection with tennis; how many such appeals were allowed; and whether there was a net gain or net loss in the land available for tennis. [12705]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 27 October 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about planning appeal decisions during the last 10 years for housing or commercial development on land previously used for, or in connection with, tennis.
  The Inspectorate only records details of proposed land uses, not those in, or previously in, existence when an appeal is received. Therefore, the information requested is regrettably not available.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory obligations will be placed on local authorities to achieve proper compliance with the International Maritime

  System purchased

  Function

  Name of sub-contractors

  Co-operative arrangements

  Cost in last financial year (£000)

  DETR

  Finest

  Accounting, purchasing and invoicing

  Software AG WS Atkins Information Technology

  None

  n/a

  Environment Agency

  McKeown

  Accounting, purchasing and invoicing

  None

  None

  n/a

  Health and Safety Executive

  McKeown

  Accounting, purchasing and invoicing

  None

  None

  576

  Rural Development

  CFACS

  Purchasing and invoicing

  Cedardata

  None

  52

  Planning Inspectorate

  Sunsystem

  Accounting, purchasing and invoicing

  None

  None

  16

  Highways Agency

  SunBusiness invoice register

  Invoicing

  Thompson Systems

  None

  11

  Full costs for all systems cannot be obtained due to disproportionate costs.

  Council Tax Arrears
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will bring in legislation to exclude imprisonment as an option at magistrates' disposal when they consider cases of poll tax and council tax arrears. [12719]
  720
  Organisation' s convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation, with particular reference to articles 3 and 6; and what resources will be provided to assist them in meeting any such obligations. [12702]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Regulations to implement the oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation convention, covering harbour authorities, operators of oil handling facilities and operators of offshore installations, are expected to come into force early next year. They will place no obligations on local authorities. However, the current review of the national contingency plan is considering, amongst other matters, the issue of local authorities' responsibilities for oil pollution, preparedness and response.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to issue implementation rules in relation to the United Kingdom's treaty obligations under the International Maritime Organisation' s convention on oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation. [12696]

  Ms Jackson
  Regulations implementing the oil pollution preparedness, response and co-operation—OPRC—convention are expected to come into force early next year. The Coastguard Agency's marine pollution control unit has recently gone out to public consultation on the draft regulations.

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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 subcontractors 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. [12561]

  Angela Eagle
  The following functions and systems have been purchased.

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to do so. Committal remains an important tool for local authorities in their efforts to recover unpaid council tax and community charge, but it is used as a last resort and a debtor can be imprisoned only where a magistrate is satisfied that failure to pay has been due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. However, the Department has recently issued a consultation paper on the enforcement of council tax debts which, amongst other things, invites views on giving magistrates powers to impose a community service order as an additional enforcement option.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the maximum length of tenancy a court may grant to a sports club under the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. [12704]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 enables courts to order the renewal of business tenancies—including sports club tenancies—for a maximum of 14 years. The Law Commission has recommended increasing this to 15 years. Other than considering this recommendation, we have no plans to review the maximum length of tenancy courts may grant when considering applications for renewals of leases under the 1954 Act.

  I know there is concern over the circumstances in which landlords may be able to frustrate applications by sports clubs for the renewal of their leases. We are considering this point.

  Energy Education
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve co-ordination between different Government Departments and their agencies when preparing educational material on energy; and if he will make a statement. [12547]

  Angela Eagle
  A co-ordinating group of Government Departments with an interest in sustainable development education in England, including energy education, has been established to ensure that Government action is well co-ordinated.

  Substances Regulation Working Group
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the European working group on substances regulation to report; what recommendations were submitted from the United Kingdom through(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the Department of the Environment; and if he will make a statement. [12806]

  Angela Eagle
  This question has been taken to relate to the existing substances regulation. The Committee, composed of representatives of the member States and chaired by the European Commission, awaits the outcome of detailed technical discussions underway in working groups, which will form the basis of any recommendation for measures to be taken in relation to substances covered by the Regulation. The UK has the lead on 13 of the 78 substances on the first and second priority lists. The assessments on 30 substances are currently under discussion; Nine submitted by the UK. Some are at a more advanced stage than others but the nine UK assessments should complete the technical review stage over the next six months before progressing to Committee stage.

  The Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, and environment directorates within the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions
  722
  co-operate closely, submitting joint assessments to working groups.

  Trichloroethylene
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise occupational exposure limits for trichloroethylene; and if he will make a statement. [12805]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Commission has no immediate plans to revise the current maximum exposure limits for trichloroethylene. The Health and Safety Executive and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions have prepared a comprehensive risk assessment document on trichloroethylene under the EU existing substances regulation. This document is still being discussed by member states. Decisions on any further risk reduction measures will be made after these discussions are concluded.

  Disabled People (Parking Permits)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the arrangements for issuing orange badge parking permits to disabled people. [12759]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans at present to change either the criteria for issuing orange badges or the parking concessions granted to badge holders under the scheme. However, the Government have agreed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, to a European Commission proposal for a recommendation to member states for a standard design for national parking badges to facilitate their mutual recognition. If finally agreed, the new design would be introduced in the United Kingdom over the normal three-year replacement cycle from 1 January 2000.

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total gross revenue from housing association rents in the last year for which figures are available; and what proportion of this is met by housing benefit. [12834]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest information available on gross revenue from housing association rents is for 1995–96 and covers 95 per cent. of the housing stock owned by associations. In England during that year the gross revenue produced by this stock was around £2,048 million. The amount of housing benefit paid to the tenants of all housing association stock in England during 1995–96 is estimated to have been around £1,395 million.

  Weald and Downland Roads Project
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent the impact on employment(a) in Hastings and (b) Tunbridge Wells was taken into account in the decision not to allow the Weald and Downland design, build, finance and operate to proceed. [12783]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The impact on employment of the DBFO project was one of the many issues assessed
  723
  under the five criteria—accessibility, safety, economy, the environment and integration—when the decision not to proceed with the DBFO project as a whole was taken.

  London Underground
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on London Underground's Project Prestige. [12880]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Prestige project, which will provide London Transport with a new ticketing system for both London Underground and London Transport Buses, is currently under negotiation between London Transport and Transys, a private sector consortium. It is hoped that negotiations will be completed in the near future.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make an announcement on the future funding arrangements for London Underground. [12980]

  Ms Jackson
  The Government are urgently considering a range of options for the future funding of London Underground, but it is too early to say when an announcement will be made.

  Transport Select Committee Reports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the former Government's responses to the Transport Select Committee's reports on(a) United Kingdom airport capacity—HC644 of Session 1995–96—and (b) the adequacy and enforcement of regulations governing heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches—HC54 of Session 1996–97. [12971]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government will be taking fully into account the helpful reports of the Select Committee in developing policy on(a) aviation related matters within the proposed "Integrated Transport" White Paper and (b) enforcement of heavy goods vehicles, buses and coaches.

  Cycling
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the actions taken by his Department since 1 May to increase provision for cyclists and increase cycle use. [12991]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have given our endorsement to the national cycling strategy which aims to quadruple cycle use by 2012. The NCS has a common ownership, having been established by consensus involving a wide range of bodies. I have chaired two meetings of the national Cycling Forum to discuss a range of issues involved in taking the strategy forward. We are now working actively with others to implement it. The Department also provides technical advice to local authority practitioners who play a significant role in developing initiatives at a local level. In July we hosted a regional seminar aimed at traffic engineers and planners to promote the NCS. And in August we published two traffic advisory leaflets outlining results of research on cycle-related issues.
  724
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to develop a strategic cycle lane network throughout London; and if he will make a statement. [12897]

  Ms Jackson
  The Government are supporting the London Cycle Network which is a 2,500 km strategic network of routes being developed by 33 London boroughs. Approximately 30 per cent. of the network exists already. Whilst the boroughs total estimated cost is £67 million, some £45 million is sought through the transport policies and programme funding, with additional sources of funding coming from the Traffic Director for London—on red routes—the Highways Agency—on trunk roads—and the Millennium Commission as well as the boroughs themselves. Now in its third year of implementation the LCN has so far received TPP allocation of £10.55 million.

  Motor Vehicle Insurance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of introducing a requirement for displaying insurance certificates in motor vehicles. [12801]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Such a requirement could give some assurance that an insurance policy for the vehicle was in force; accompanying provisions to prevent the display of certificates for policies which had been cancelled would also be needed. Display of a certificate would however provide no assurance that the driver was covered by an insurance policy or was complying with policy conditions. The value of a requirement to display would therefore be less in this country than in those countries which have vehicle-related insurance systems, under which cover is taken out for a particular vehicle regardless of who drives it. Although the Government have not discarded the possibility of a requirement to display evidence of insurance, it appears at present that other measures, such as a computerised insurance database, would offer a better approach to the problem of dealing with the irresponsible minority of drivers who fail to take out insurance. The nation-wide introduction of wheelclamping for vehicles for which vehicle excise duty has been evaded will also provide a significant knock on benefit for enforcement of the compulsory insurance requirements.

  Integrated Transport Strategy Seminars
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons hon. Members have not been invited to attend seminars on the development of an integrated transport strategy being organised by the Government office for the south-east; and if he will make a statement. [12875]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government office has held a number of seminars with local authorities, transport operators, users and environmental groups and others to discuss transport policy. To be effective, numbers attending had to be limited and so it was not possible to invite the region's 83 Members of Parliament. The Department did, however, send all hon. Members copies of the consultation documents on the role of the trunk
  725
  road network in England and on developing an integrated transport policy: and would welcome any contributions which Members of Parliament might wish to make.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss the occurrence of near misses between aeroplanes in flight; and if he will make a statement. [12898]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Both Ministers and senior officials have discussed these issues with representatives of the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services Limited, and will continue to do so.

  Regional Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those regional airports which have lost their direct air links to Heathrow or Gatwick airports over the last five years. [12992]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Regional airports in the UK that have lost their direct air services to Heathrow and Gatwick since 1992, are as follows:

  To Heathrow

  To Gatwick

  Birmingham

  Birmingham

  East Midlands

  Cardiff

  (Inverness)1

  East Midlands

  Liverpool

  Liverpool

  Newquay2

  Plymouth2

  1 British Airways have announced that they intend to transfer the Inverness service from Heathrow to Gatwick with effect from 17 November 1997.

  2 Newquay and Plymouth are now served from Gatwick.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those organisations that have responded to date to the consultation exercise on an integrated transport policy. [12973]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Some 20,000 copies of the consultation document on developing an integrated transport policy have been sent out to members of the public and organisations. So far, around 4,000 responses have been received and officials are now entering details of these on to a database so that they can be properly analysed. The great bulk of responses received to date are from individuals and it is likely that most organisations such as business and local authorities will contribute nearer the closing date of 14 November.

  A full report on the consultation exercise will be published with the White Paper.

  Drivers (Eyesight)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research his Department has evaluated into the awareness of drivers of poor eyesight. [12863]
  726
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1995 the Department commissioned Professor W.N. Charman of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology to undertake a thorough review of the research on driver vision standards.

  The Department published his report earlier this year and it is available as "Road Safety Research Report No. 2 vision and Driving—A Literature Review and Commentary". I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's estimate of the number of drivers in the United Kingdom who are unaware that their eyesight is below the safe minimum standard. [12793]

  Ms Jackson
  A survey carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory 1992 found that about 2.5 per cent. of drivers did not meet the statutory requirement of being able to read a number plate in good light from a distance of 20.5m with glasses or contact lenses if worn. A subsequent survey commissioned by others has suggested a higher figure. It would clearly be difficult to establish how many of the drivers concerned were unaware that their eyesight had fallen below the required standard. The Department strongly advises drivers to check themselves against the number plate standard regularly. Where eyesight is below the required standard, the normal remedy will be to obtain new glasses or contact lenses. Drivers who cannot meet the standard must notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency immediately and stop driving; otherwise they are committing a criminal offence. Drivers who require glasses or contact lenses in order to meet the standard must wear them whenever driving.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the gross cost to the public sector if all local authority rents were to be cut by 10 per cent.; and what would be the cost net of savings in housing benefits. [12836]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A 10 per cent. reduction in guideline rents in 1998–99 for housing revenue account local authorities in England would have the following estimated effects:

  Present value (discounting to 1996–97) of effects from 1998–99 to 2027–28

  1996–97 prices discounting to 1996–97

  Effect

  Present value (£ million)

  Loss of gross rental income

  5,819.6

  Savings in rent rebates

  4,378.2

  Saving in public expenditure linked to the RPI

  1,341.4

  Net public expenditure cost

  100.0

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what increase in subsidy to housing associations would be necessary to produce a reduction of 10 per cent. in the average level of housing association rents. [12835]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Rent subsidies are not paid to housing associations. Social housing grant is a capital grant paid
  727
  on new housing association development, but any changes in the grant rate for new development would not directly affect rents on existing housing association stock.

  Minerals (Carriage by Rail)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the regulations for the carriage of minerals by rail in order to secure the same control on dust emission as is required by road transport. [12760]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Local authorities already have adequate powers to control dust emissions from minerals carried by rail. They can impose planning conditions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and take enforcement action under the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), of 21 July,Official Report, column 430, on how many occasions an inquiry into a strategic or unitary development plan has proposed large-scale releases of green belt land for housing; and if he will list those which he or his predecessors have called in or have requested modifications. [12974]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the direct cost to public funds of the local government review process in England between April 1992 and March 1997. [12941]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost of the Local Government Commission, which undertook the structural review of local government during those years, is as follows:

  Year

  Total expenditure £ million

  1992–93

  2.056

  1993–94

  5.146

  1994–95

  7.913

  1995–96

  4.047

  1996–97

  2.099

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are being taken to extend the scope of the European Union working time directive to cover transport workers. [12879]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The European Commission published a White Paper in July on proposals for extending the provisions of the working time directive to 728
  the excluded sectors. We are currently considering this and will reply to the Commission in due course.

  Congestion Charging
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities currently piloting congestion charging schemes; and what plans he has for extending such trials. [12990]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An experiment funded by my Department is under way in Leicester. This is a research project using volunteers. Compulsory charging could not be undertaken, even on a trial basis, without new primary legislation. Whether to introduce such legislation, and whether to facilitate further experimental schemes, are issues that the Government are considering as part of the preparation for the integrated transport policy White Paper.

  Gas Power
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the Rio II treaty on United Kingdom policy towards gas power. [11102]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply

  The United Nations General Assembly special session on 23 to 27 June 1997 did not result in any treaty commitments. However, in considering applications for gas-fired and other forms of power stations, we will ensure consistency with the wider objectives of secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices and meeting environmental targets.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what analysis the Government have carried out on the environmental labour and development impact of the multilateral agreement on investment. [11864]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are committed to safeguarding the international environment, to eliminating abusive labour practices and to promoting sustainable development in both developing and industrialised countries. We would not want to see an agreement which undermined our environmental, labour or development policies.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations she has received from asylum seekers relating to their living standards. [11656]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have received approximately 40 letters about the benefit position of asylum seekers from hon. Members, members of the public and asylum
  729
  seekers' representatives. We have also received a copy of the report, "Past Misery, Present Muddle" from the charity the Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture.

  As part of the Home Office's comprehensive spending review, an interdepartmental review is currently considering all aspects of arrangements for asylum seekers, including the provision of accommodation and support.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps she will take to co-ordinate activities between the Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency to combat benefit fraud; and if she will assess the advantages of measures to deal with deliberate evasion of child maintenance by absent parents. [12489]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Children are entitled to the support of both parents wherever they live. It is not acceptable that parents should seek to avoid their responsibilities and one of our key aims for the Child Support Agency is to ensure that more absent parents pay the maintenance they owe.

  Benefit

  Rate when introduced £

  Date of introduction

  Current rate £

  Value if increased in line with prices since date introduced £

  Value if increased in line with earnings since date introduced £

  Income support

  5

  April 1988

  5

  7.35

  8.50

  10

  October 1996

  10

  10.25

  10.40

  15

  April 1988

  15

  22.05

  25.60

  Jobseeker's allowance

  5

  October 1996

  5

  5.15

  5.20

  10

  October 1996

  10

  10.25

  10.40

  15

  October 1996

  15

  15.40

  15.65

  Housing Benefit

  5

  April 1988

  5

  7.35

  8.50

  10

  April 1988

  10

  14.75

  17.10

  15

  April 1988

  15

  22.05

  25.60

  15

  April 1988

  25

  22.05

  25.60

  Housing benefit child care disregard

  40

  October 1994

  60

  43.05

  44.75

  1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 p at each uprating date.

  2. The retail prices index (all items) less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments has been used in this table.

  3. Jobseeker's allowance replaced income support for the unemployed in October 1996.

  4. The £15 disregard for housing benefit was increased for lone parents to £25 in October 1990.

  5. The £40 child care disregard on housing benefit was increased to £60 in April, 1996.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will investigate the level of accuracy of the CSA assessments. [12487]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are looking closely at all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service.

  The receipt of regular maintenance is a key part of the Government's strategy for helping lone mothers into work. All the indicators currently in place show a continuing improvement in the accuracy of assessments. We expect this trend to be maintained both as the result of continued efforts by the agency's staff and as the provisions contained in the Social Security Bill are implemented in due course. These provisions will improve and simplify the decision-making process.
  730
  The Child Support Agency and the Benefits Agency have established liaison arrangements to ensure that the two agencies work effectively together in providing an improved level of service for their joint customers. These include the shared use of common information or allegations made by the public to detect and prevent benefit fraud and the stationing of fraud liaison officers at Child Support Agency centres. Questions about child support are now included in the income support claim form to allow the maintenance process to begin as soon as benefit is claimed. And, from April 1998, parents with care will be helped to complete a maintenance application form when visited by Benefits Agency staff at the start of their income support claim.

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current value of earnings disregards under income support, housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance if they had been increased(a) in line with prices and (b) in line with earnings since April 1988. [12284]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the table.

  Social Protection
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will place in the Library a copy of the full correspondence between her Department and European Commissioner Flynn on the European Union discussion document on social protection. [12509]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In March the European Commission published, "Communication on Modernising and Improving Social Protection in the European Union", with the invitation that recipients submit observations on the range of issues covered.

  A copy of the letter sent to Commissioner Flynn on 17 July has been placed in the Library. This response welcomed a well structured discussion in Europe of Key issues in social protection, but ruled out direct involvement of the EU in decisions which remain the

  731
  responsibility of member states. It also gave an outline of the Government's priorities and thinking on modernising social protection.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the all work test for incapacity benefit. [12488]

  Mr. Denham
  We are reviewing all aspects of the social security system. We will assess whether sickness and disability benefits are consistent with our overall aims to encourage work, savings and honesty. A key aim is to help people focus on their capacity for work rather than their disability and provide a climate which will help them achieve independence and play a fuller part in society.

  As part of this we will be looking at a number of eligibility issues including those surrounding the all work test, and will be seeking to ensure the test provides a fair assessment of incapacity for benefit purposes.

  Benefit Overpayment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures apply in respect of individuals seeking the return of money they have repaid for benefit overpayment subsequently determined by an adjudicating officer as not requiring repayment. [12490]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  All overpayments of benefit are looked at individually and their recoverability decided upon on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case as known at the time of the decision. However, where the decision to recover an overpayment is subsequently reversed, this will affect only the balance of the overpayment still outstanding.

  Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many letters have been passed on to her Department's correspondence unit in each month since May 1997; and if she will make a statement; [12936]

  (2) how many and what percentage of correspondence answered by her Department's correspondence unit receives a full response in (a) a week or less, (b) one to two weeks,(c) two to three weeks,(d) three to four weeks, (e) between one and two months, (f) over two months and (g) over six months; and if she will make a statement; [12934]

  (3) how many and what percentage of correspondence answered by her Department's correspondence unit receives a holding reply prior to a full response; [12933]

  (4) how many people are employed (a) full-time and (b) part-time in her Department's correspondence unit; [12937]

  (5) under what circumstances correspondence sent to her Department is passed on to the correspondence unit; and if she will make a statement. [12935]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  732
  During the period May to September 1997, departmental Ministers received around 25,000 letters from hon. Members, members of the public and others. This compares with around 15,000 letters received by Ministers during the same period last year. The figures for each month are as follows:

  align="center">Total letters received

  1996

  1997

  May

  3,244

  4,124

  June

  3,003

  5,458

  July

  4,043

  6,948

  August

  2,149

  4,374

  September

  2,897

  4,136

  Total

  15,336

  25,040

  A correspondence section attached to Ministers' offices, which has 13 full-time staff, receives all correspondence and seeks advice from officials, including those in the policy correspondence unit. Other units and officials elsewhere in the Department also deal with correspondence.

  Our target is to reply to all letters within 20 working days. Ministers reply personally to about 30 per cent. of letters. The target response time has been achieved for 42 per cent. of letters in the last five months. Detailed figures are shown in the table:

  Ministerial replies issued

  align="right">Number of days

  Up to 20

  21–40

  40+

  May

  Number

  68

  0

  0

  Per cent.

  100

  0

  0

  June

  Number

  278

  58

  0

  Per cent.

  83

  17

  0

  July

  Number

  556

  525

  76

  Per cent.

  48

  46

  6

  August

  Number

  485

  569

  214

  Per cent.

  38

  45

  17

  September

  Number

  349

  629

  368

  Per cent.

  26

  47

  27

  1. Figures for turn around times of correspondence answered by officials are not available.

  2. Figures for the number of holding replies are not kept but all letters are acknowledged shortly after receipt.

  We remain committed to answering all correspondence within 20 working days and are taking active measures to reduce turnaround times.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list for the most recent available period,(a) the number of claimants of one-parent benefit in the United Kingdom and each region and nation, (b) the estimated number of claimants of one-parent benefit for the same areas who are (i) working and (ii) working and receiving family credit, (c) the number of claimants of one-parent benefit who are also receiving

  733
  lone-parent premium for the same areas and (d) the number of new claimants in each area over the most recent 12 month period. [12979]

  Country/region1

  One parent benefit (OPB) recipients2

  Lone parents receiving family credit3

  OPB receipients receiving lone parent premium in income support/jobseeker"s allowance4,5

  OPB recipients receiving lone parent premium in housing benefit5,6

  OPB recipients receiving lone parent premium in council tax benefit5,6

  New claims to OPB7

  Great Britain

  1,027,000

  326,000

  388,000

  109,000

  89,000

  165,000

  England

  874,000

  263,000

  335,000

  91,000

  75,000

  n/a

  South-east (including London)

  n/a

  n/a

  140,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North

  n/a

  n/a

  23,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  n/a

  28,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  21,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  East Anglia

  n/a

  n/a

  10,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South-west

  n/a

  n/a

  23,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  32,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North-west

  n/a

  n/a

  58,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Scotland

  104,000

  45,000

  35,000

  14,000

  11,000

  n/a

  Wales

  50,000

  19,000

  18,000

  4,000

  3,000

  n/a

  1 Standard statistical English regions.

  2 As at 31 December 1996. Based on 1 per cent. sample of child benefit centre records.

  3 As at 31 December 1996. Represents the maximum number of such lone parents that could potentially be in receipt of OPB. Based on 5 per cent. sample of family credit records.

  4 Income support as at November 1996, based on Quarterly Statistical Enquiry. Excludes 6,000 jobseekers"s allowance (Income based) cases which cannot be split by country/region.

  5 Excludes OPB recipients receiving income support/jobseeker"s allowance/housing benefit/council tax benefit but not receiving a lone parent premium because they receive a higher value premium e.g., disabled child premium.

  6 Housing benefit/council tax benefit recipients not also in receipt of IS/JSA, as at May 1996. Based on HB/CTB Annual Statistical Enquiry. There is an overlap as most people receive both HB and CTB.

  7 For year ending 31 December 1996. Based on per cent. sample of child benefit centre records.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 30 July,Official Report, column 364, what estimate she has made of the number of lone parents in receipt of income support in each of the next three financial years. [12822]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The latest estimates of the number of lone parents in receipt of income support in each of the next three financial years are shown in the table. Unfortunately revised estimates will not actually be available until publication of the 1998 social security departmental report next Spring.

  Lone parents in receipt of income support

  Thousands

  1997–98

  1,054

  1998–99

  1,044

  1999–00

  1,054

  1. Figures are consistent with those given in tables 6 and 7 in the 1997 Social Security Departmental Report and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent sample and as such are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Backdating
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for benefit made in the last year were eventually backdated(a) up to one month, (b) at least one month but less than three months, (c) at least three months but less than 12 months and
  734
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  (d) at least 12 months for each of the major social security benefits. [12818]

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

  Number of claimants affected as a result of changes to the backdating rules from April 1997 and June/October 1998

  Full-year estimates

  Claims

  Over 1 month, up to 3 months

  Over 3 months

  Retirement pension

  Negligible

  40,000

  Incapacity benefit

  5,000

  10,000

  Invalid care allowance

  20,000

  30,000

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit

  2,500

  2,500

  Contributory jobseeker's allowance

  1—

  Negligible

  Income support/income based jobseeker's allowance

  105,000

  30,000

  Child benefit/one parent benefit

  2—

  65,000

  Housing benefit (HB)/council

  HB 5,000/

  HB 45,000/

  tax benefit (CTB)

  CTB 15,000

  CTB 100,000

  Other benefits

  Negligible

  Negligible

  Total

  155,000

  325,000

  1 Information not available.

  2 Information not readily available.

  Information is based on a small ad-hoc survey of benefit claims undertaken during early 1996.

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.
  735
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the main reasons why individuals claim benefits late; and if she will make a statement. [12819]

  Mr. Bradley
  An ad hoc survey of a small number of Benefits Agency local offices was undertaken in early 1996 to provide information on the extent of backdating and, in those benefits where it was possible to identify, the reason for backdating.

  This information was used in deciding on the range of exceptions provided in the current regulations.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the time-table for the implementation of limits on the backdating of benefits to one month. [12953]

  Mr. Bradley
  We intend to implement the new backdating rules in June 1998 for all benefits except housing benefit and council tax benefit which will be implemented in October 1998.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the deterrent effects of custodial sentences. [11667]

  Ms Quin
  The Home Office research and statistics directorate has recently commissioned a literature review of the deterrent effect of the various sentencing options which will be completed early next year.

  Crime (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he intends to take to reduce crime in rural areas. [11673]

  Mr. Michael
  Our comprehensive strategy against crime includes a new statutory duty on local authorities and the police to develop local partnerships to prevent crime and promote community safety. This will benefit all parts of the country: rural as well as urban and inner city by targeting the specific problems and needs of each area.

  Criminal Justice
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce delays in the criminal justice system. [11678]

  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle delays in the criminal justice system. [11681]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed to tackling delay throughout the criminal justice system and have pledged to halve the time taken to deal with persistent young offenders. We have accepted proposals from the review of delay in the criminal justice system which are designed to enable straightforward guilty plea cases to be dealt within days of charge, improve case 736
  management in magistrates courts and start indictable-only cases in the Crown Court. The Crime and Disorder Bill will contain the necessary measures and, to underpin them, will make provision for statutory time limits which will be tougher for young offenders than for adults, and tougher still for persistent young offenders. Our proposals for legislation to speed up youth justice were published in a consultation paper, "Tackling Delay in the Youth Justice System", on 15 October when we also published comprehensive guidance for youth justice agencies on tackling delays within the existing statutory framework.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. [11679]

  Mr. Straw
  We have made rapid progress on this. We introduced the Human Rights Bill in another place last Thursday and we published the White Paper "Rights Brought Home" last Friday.

  Private Security Industry
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce the statutory regulation of the private security industry. [11680]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry as soon as possible. As we warned in opposition, we will not be able to bring forward legislation in our first year of office, but as is shown by our consultation exercise, we are already working with the industry and others to achieve a consensus on the best way to provide a comprehensive, effective and streamlined system of regulations.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce the statutory regulation of the private security industry. [11694]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to introduce statutory regulation of the private security industry as soon as possible. We will not be able to bring forward legislation in our first year of office, as we warned before the election, but we have recently completed a consultation exercise with the industry and others on the best way to provide a comprehensive, effective and streamlined system. We want to look beyond the narrow proposals put forward by the previous Government which focused only on criminal record checks for the contract guarding sector of the industry. In opposition we welcomed the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee on regulation. However, the Committee did not offer a detailed blueprint and in the light of the responses received to the consultation exercise we will consider the industry as a whole to decide what action is needed.

  Rural Police Officers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to recruit more police officers in rural areas. [11682]
  737
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that police authorities have the resources to enable more police officers to be recruited in rural areas. [11688]

  Mr. Michael
  I recognise that people in rural communities have different policing needs from those who live in urban areas, but the Government have no direct control over police numbers. Under legislation passed by the previous Government, it is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in each force having regard to the resources available to them.

  We are working with the police to reduce administrative burdens and to increase civilianisation which will allow chief constables to put more officers on the beat. We also intend to introduce legislation which will place a statutory duty on all local authorities and the police jointly to develop partnerships to reduce crime. Local communities will be able to identify their needs and the strategies to tackle them.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to recruit more police officers in rural areas. [11658]

  Mr. Michael
  People in rural communities have different policing needs from those in urban areas, but the Government have no direct control over police numbers in either. Under legislation passed by the previous Government, it is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in each force, having regard to the resources available to them and their deployment.

  We are working with the police to reduce administrative burdens and to enable chief constables to put more officers out into the community. We also intend to introduce legislation which will place a statutory duty on all local authorities and the police jointly to develop partnerships to cut crime in rural and urban areas alike.

  Crime Prevention (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to give local authorities statutory powers for crime prevention. [11683]

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he will introduce to increase the involvement of local authorities in combating crime. [11690]

  Mr. Michael
  Details of our proposals were set out in the consultation document, "Getting to Grips with Crime—a new framework for Local Action", which we published on 17 September. It is our intention to require local authorities and the police service together to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder problems, to draw up a strategy for tackling them and to publish targets for delivering the strategy. This process must be conducted on the basis of full consultation with local people and a wide range of other key partners.

  Crime (EU Discussions)
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met his European counterparts to discuss crime levels. [11684]
  738
  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend and I met all the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the European Union on 9 and 10 October and, most recently, on 20 and 21 October my right hon. Friend met the French Justice and Interior Ministers. On both occasions, a useful discussion on a number of crime-related issues took place.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage the voluntary sector to participate in offering opportunities for young people convicted of crimes. [11685]

  Mr. Michael
  Through the new deal for unemployed 18–24-year-olds, we are encouraging voluntary organisations to come forward with a wide range of programmes and opportunities which will address the employability needs of young unemployed people, including those convicted of crimes, as well as doing useful work for the community.

  In addition, the voluntary sector, in partnership with probation and prison services and other statutory agencies, delivers a range of programmes for young offenders, including drug and alcohol counselling, advice on employment, training and education opportunities, accommodation provision and developmental programmes.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to introduce more severe penalties for young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [11676]

  Mr. Michael
  Our proposals for reform of the youth justice system have been set out in three consultation papers published in the last five weeks. Our aim is a faster, more efficient youth justice system with a clear focus on preventing re-offending. A new final warning scheme will end multiple cautions and ensure that firm action is taken quickly when young people offend. A new court order will require young people to make reparation to victims. We will strengthen community penalties and ensure effective custodial sentences for the most serious and persistent young offenders.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between anti-social behaviour and crime. [11686]

  Mr. Michael
  The British crime survey has demonstrated a link between disorder or low-level misbehaviour and the levels of more serious crime in an area.

  Anti-social behaviour also causes alarm and distress and heightens the fear of crime. Tackling this sort of conduct and preventing its escalating into more serious criminal behaviour is a central element in our policy towards making our communities safer. Proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill which we will introduce later this year will address this directly and we are working with the police on ways to identify and target anti-social behaviour.

  Prisons (Capacity)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of places in prisons. [11687]

  Ms Quin
  To help with the current population pressures, the Prison Service was allocated a further £43 million in July for this year and next. In total, these resources will create 290 new places on top of those to be provided by the existing building programme and will provide additional staffing and fund regime activities to support the placing of a further 1,830 prisoners in existing accommodation.

  The existing building programme will provide 8,600 additional places over this year and the next two years through a combination of expanding existing prisons and building new prisons.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to CCTV schemes. [11689]

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of CCTV in combating crime. [11693]

  Mr. Michael
  I strongly support closed circuit television schemes, which can be effective in preventing crime and the fear of crime. They can make a contribution to community safety in general, especially as part of a wider crime prevention strategy. I am currently considering, linked to our review of existing expenditure programmes, how to encourage the appropriate use of CCTV in the fight against crime.

  Corruption
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Government plans to create a single offence of corruption. [11691]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published on 9 June a statement on reform of the corruption statutes for consultation. A copy is available in the Library. The Law Commission will also be producing proposals for reform of the law in this area.

  My right hon. Friend will consider carefully the results of these exercises, together with any further recommendations the Nolan committee may make in relation to the criminal law.

  My right hon. Friend expects to make a further statement on the reform of the law in this area early next year.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation is currently being 740
  discussed at the European Union level for the standardisation of member states' legislation pertaining to the combating of corruption by officials; and if he will make a statement. [12315]

  Mr. Michael
  In September 1996, European Union member states adopted a protocol to the 1995 Convention on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Communities. The protocol requires all member states to establish a certain minimum level of protection against damage to the Communities' budget by reason of corruption which makes similar provision in the case of corruption of or by national or Community officials. In May 1997, the member states adopted a separate convention on corruption of or by national or Community officials which is not linked to damage to the Communities' budget. These instruments do not cover the corruption of officials from third countries, but member states have, in recent weeks, adopted two common positions under title VI of the treaty on European Union supporting on-going negotiations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Council of Europe on conventions which address this aspect.

  The Government strongly support measures to penalise corruption, whether by or of national or Community officials or in the private sector. To that end, they intend to take forward next year, during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union, recommendation 6 of the European Union action plan on combating organised crime, which was endorsed by the Amsterdam European Council. This requires the development of a comprehensive Union policy on corruption covering first and third pillar measures and applying to public sector officials and to the private sector.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of prisoners on 1 May; and if he will make a statement. [11692]

  Ms Quin
  The prison population on 1 May was 60,088.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the amount of time prisoners spend(a) in working and (b) on education schemes. [11849]

  Ms Quin
  The Government recognise the difficulties faced by the Prison Service in dealing with the exceptional rise in the prison population, but remain committed to ensuring that prisoners are provided with constructive regimes.

  We expect the Prison Service to seek to expand work opportunities for prisoners by developing its ability to attract work from the private sector and by improving the organisation of prison regimes so as to maximise the time that prisoners can spend in purposeful activity, including work.
  741
  Invitations to tender for new contracts to deliver education in prisons, to be issued shortly, will aim for contracts which, in delivering the prison core curriculum, maximise efficient use of resources and offer a dynamic ability to meet the needs of particular prison establishments.

  Provision for regime facilities is included in the extra £43 million over this year and next which has been made available to the Prison Service to help cope with overcrowding pressures.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to accommodate the rise in the number of prisoners; and what is his policy on early release. [12264]

  Ms Quin
  To help with the increasing population pressures, the Prison Service was allocated a further £43 million in July for this year and the next. In total, these additional resources will create 290 new places on top of those to be provided by the existing building programme. These funds will also provide additional staffing and funding for regime activities to support the placing of a further 1,830 prisoners in existing accommodation.

  The existing building programme will provide 8,600 additional places over this year and the next two years, through a combination of expanding existing prisons and building new prisons.

  Early release arrangements are set out in part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Government have no plans to review these. As regards executive release, the Government have no plans to use these powers. Executive release from prison is designed to be used as a last resort.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards, prisoners having television in their cells; and if he will make a statement. [12265]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are reconsidering policy in this area, including examining the case for in-cell television as an earned privilege, but we have not yet taken final decisions. Meanwhile, no action has been taken either to extend the privilege of in-cell television or to withdraw sets from those establishments that currently allow them.

  The all-party Home Affairs Committee, then with a Conservative majority, recommended in March 1997 a rethink of policy and stressed the potential of television as a means of contributing to good order in a prison.

  The Learmont report in 1995 recommended that in-cell television should be made widely available and pointed to its potential benefits as an information as well as a recreational medium.

  UK Border Controls
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the retention of United Kingdom border controls with the rest of the European Union. [11848]
  742
  Ms Quin
  We intend to retain the United Kingdom's system of frontier controls. In the treaty of Amsterdam we have obtained legal confirmation of the right to maintain controls at our frontiers with other member states of the European Union.

  Gambling (Arbitration Body)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of establishing an independent body to arbitrate in disputes between people making wagers and bookmakers. [12516]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Horserace Betting Levy Board has recently considered this and other related matters. It concluded that the current arrangements for settling disputes—the Tattersalls' committee and the green seal service—were effective in most cases.

  I will be discussing the issues with the levy board shortly.

  Greyhound Racing
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) proportion and (b) number of greyhound races shown in betting shops are from racecourses owned by the major off-course betting companies. [12304]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Of the 9,646 greyhound races shown in betting shops in the year to 31 October 1997, 4,108–42.6 per cent.—will be from tracks owned by major off-course betting companies.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated shortfall in revenue to the British greyhound racing fund since 1992 resulting from certain bookmaking companies failing to contribute to the fund. [12311]

  Mr. Howarth
  The British Greyhound Racing Board estimates that the fund should have received £22 million since 1992 but has actually received £13.4 million, leaving a shortfall of £8.6 million in contributions.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bookmaking companies currently pay the agreed 0.4 per cent. contributions to the British greyhound racing fund. [12306]

  Mr. Howarth
  We understand that up to September 1996 the fund had received contributions from 97 bookmakers.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) proportion and (b) number of greyhound races shown in betting shops. [12313]

  Mr. Howarth
  In the year 1 November 1996 to 31 October 1997, 9,646 afternoon greyhound races will be transmitted from greyhound tracks into betting shops.

  In 1996, 74,343 races were staged by National Greyhound Racing Club member tracks; 13 per cent. of these were shown in betting shops.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the contracting process between the bookmakers' afternoon greyhound services and the greyhound racecourses. [12303]
  743
  Mr. Howarth
  We have no plans to review the contracting process between Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services and greyhound tracks. This is a commercial matter between them.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many National Greyhound Racing Club greyhound racecourses are currently in operation; and how many are owned by major off-course betting companies. [12312]

  Mr. Howarth
  Of the 32 National Greyhound Racing Club greyhound tracks currently in operation, four are owned by major off-course bookmakers.

  Off-course Betting Shops
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bookmaking companies currently operate off-course betting shops in the United Kingdom. [12305]

  Mr. Howarth
  An estimated 1,793 off-course bookmaking companies currently operate in the United Kingdom.

  Primary Purpose Rule
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has received regarding the changes made in the primary purpose rule on 5 June. [12346]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has been much support for the abolition on 5 June of the primary purpose rule.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing changes in the primary purpose rule. [11657]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The primary purpose rule was abolished on 5 June. A review of outstanding appeal cases has now been completed.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the revocation of the certificate of designation at Huntingdon Life Sciences involves both the company's sites; [12307]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Ms Jones) of 24 July, Official Report, column 680, if the baboons at Huntingdon Life Sciences are wild caught; [12465]

  (3) how many project licences have been revoked at Huntingdon Life Sciences as a result of the Home Office investigation; [12296]

  (4) what problems relating to the care, treatment and handling of animals at Huntingdon Life Sciences were found in animal departments other than the dog toxicology unit as a result of his Department's investigation. [12464]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have written to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon.744
  Member for Newark (Ms Jones) of 24 July, Official Report, column 68, what are the 16 stringent conditions his Department has set Huntingdon Life Sciences. [12466]

  Mr. Howarth
  The 16 conditions were:

  (i) That a report be submitted to the Home Office setting out what changes have been introduced to the line management for and the responsibilities of the proposed certificate holder, to ensure that these arrangements do not compromise animal welfare.

  (ii) That the applicant for a new certificate of designation has successfully completed module 1 of a Home Office accredited training course.

  (iii) That summary findings of the Department of Health good laboratory practice scrutiny be disclosed by the establishment to the Home Office with confirmation that any process problems have been corrected.

  (iv) That a written submission be made outlining how each of the standard conditions attached to all certificates of designation would be effectively and fully implemented.

  (v) That adequate provision has been made for regular and effective means of communication between those entrusted with responsibilities under the Act.

  (vi) That the applicant be required to satisfy the Home Office that line management arrangements for all animal care staff are effective. Specifically:

  (a) that line managers are qualified by experience or training and informed of their responsibilities and the need for welfare related problems to be notified to an appropriate level within the company;

  (b) that only trained and competent staff are entrusted with responsibility for the care and welfare of animals;

  (c) that measures are in place to ensure that the certificate holder will be properly informed of conditions and practices within the designated areas.

  (vii) That the applicant demonstrates that the staff appraisal reporting system for animal care staff ensures that concerns relating to animal welfare are properly identified and resolved and makes provision for periodic assessment that basic competencies have been maintained.

  (viii) That the applicant supplies the Home Office with a general "process map" with overviews of the methods and resources to be used to ensure that reduction, refinement and replacement are adequately addressed in the design of animal studies performed at the establishment.

  (ix) That, for new studies, a system is in place which ensures that adequate numbers of appropriately trained and licensed technical staff will be available.

  (x) That a system is established to determine the nature, frequency and duration of visits by the named veterinary surgeon to the designated areas.

  (xi) That a suitable named person for the dog facility is nominated.

  (xii) That the applicant submits an enforceable code of conduct for the control of dogs, coupled with an effective means of reporting misconduct to an appropriate level within the organisation. This should be accompanied by evidence that all dog unit animal care staff have received appropriate training.

  (xiii) That the applicant demonstrates that systems are in place to ensure that staff training in the handling and care of dogs ensures that structured training is delivered, that competence is demonstrably assessed and that only competent persons are entrusted with responsibility for animals' health and welfare.

  745

  (xiv) That the applicant submits standard operating procedures and protocols for the dog facilities relating to the housing, husbandry, care, restraint and performance of regulated procedures, with evidence that staff have successfully completed appropriate, structured training. This should include:

  (a) a protocol for the group exercising of dogs which specifies the minimum daily exercise period per dog, defines the minimum amount of staff time to be used to socialise with the dogs and identifies the type of area provided for the exercise to take place:

  (b) protocols for the restraint of dogs to enable intravenous dosing and sampling and the proper production of haemostasis thereafter. Evidence should be supplied that animal care staff have been appropriately trained or re-trained.

  (xv) That the company has determined by internal benchmarking the principles which will determine and minimise the daily period for which pair-housed dogs will be held singly.

  (xvi) That the applicant details any other measures which have or will be taken to provide environmental enrichment and a better quality of life for animals.

  The company has now met these conditions and a new certificate of designation was issued on 29 September.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Association of Convenience Stores concerning a proposal for mandatory identity cards for young people; what response he has given; and if he will make a statement. [12289]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Association's chief executive wrote to my right hon. Friend on 27 May asking the Government to introduce compulsory identity cards to assist retailers in determining the age of customers. I discussed this proposal with representatives of the association at a meeting on 18 June.

  I subsequently wrote to the chief executive on 17 July, sending him a copy of the statement issued that day by the ministerial group on alcopops, which set out the Government's position on identity cards in the context of the Government's initiative on alcohol misuse by young people.

  The statement made clear that the Government are considering the issues raised by national identity cards, but that these go wider than questions relating to sales of products to those under age. In any event, the introduction of national identity cards would require legislation and would not represent a short-term solution to concerns about the sale of alcohol to young people.

  The statement welcomed the commitment of the association and other retail and liquor industry interests to expanding the existing Portman Group proof of age card scheme to tackle sales of alcohol to the under-18s.

  I have just received a further letter from the association, which I am considering.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to publish a consultation document regarding the introduction of an identity card scheme. [12844]
  746
  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no present plans to issue such a document.

  North Yorkshire Police
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assist with the provision of radio communications for North Yorkshire police. [12338]

  Mr. Michael
  The police information technology organisation in the Home Office has provided assistance and advice to North Yorkshire police on its radio communications planning, prior to the implementation of the next generation of digital radio communications systems from 1999 onwards. This advice and assistance will continue.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average times for processing criminal injuries compensation claims. [12515]

  Mr. Michael
  Claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme vary greatly in their complexity. The straightforward ones may be determined in a matter of weeks, but those in which there are evidential difficulties or where the medical diagnosis or prognosis is uncertain may take several years to bring to a conclusion. Some will also be subject to an appeal. There is accordingly no meaningful average time for processing all cases. However, the victims charter sets a standard of 12 months from receipt of a claim to the issue of a first decision. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority advises that, under the new tariff-based scheme, that standard has been met in 90 per cent. of claims received on or after 1 April 1996.

  Alcohol Sales (Fundraising Events)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of allowing charities and community groups to pay a single annual fee to register as entitled to sell alcohol at fundraising events. [12784]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The licensing laws were amended earlier this year to allow charities and other bodies to apply for more occasional permissions to sell alcohol at fundraising events.

  We are willing to examine any specific proposals for further change which are put to us.

  Algerian Nationals
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Algerian nationals have been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom in the past 12 months; [12790]

  (2) how many Algerian nationals were refused asylum in the United Kingdom in the past 12 months; [12789]

  (3) how many Algerian nationals have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom in the past 12 months. [12791]
  747
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Decisions on applications1 2 for asylum in the United Kingdom from Algerian nationals, excluding dependants, in the 12 months between October 1996 and September 1997

  Number of principal applicants

  Asylum applications

  590

  Total decisions3

  1,090

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  60

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  10

  Refusals

  1,020

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the period.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Algerian nationals are being held in detention centres in the United Kingdom. [12788]

  Mr. O'Brien
  As at 16 October 1997, a total of 23 Algerian nationals were detained in immigration detention centres. This figure excludes those detained under Immigration Act powers in prison establishments or in prison cells.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Algerian nationals are currently being held in custody in the United Kingdom for non-immigration offences. [12792]

  Ms Quin
  The latest available information is for 30 September 1997. On that date there were 25 Algerian nationals held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-Immigration Act offences. information for Scotland and Northern Ireland is available from the respective Secretaries of State.

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 July,Official Report, column 391, if the review of the oldest document retained in the Home Office has been completed. [12865]

  Mr. Straw
  The review has been completed and I am pleased to say that the papers will be transferred to the Public Record Office and made available for public inspection later this year, subject to minor extractions. The extractions are intended to protect the identities of individual informants who put themselves at risk in the service of the state. It would not be in the public interest to reveal the identities of such individuals, since to do so might deter potential informants from assisting the authorities today. Of course, all the agents named in these records have long since died, but in many cases members of their families will still be alive and particularly in the context of Ireland, where memories can be deep and bitter, publication of the names cold cause unnecessary and gratuitous distress or worse.

  Road Traffic Act 1988
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the enforcement of section 154 of the Road Traffic Act 1988; and if he will make a statement. [12798]

  Mr. Michael
  No representations have been received during the period of this Parliament.

  Section 154 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that a person against whom a motor insurance claim is made must on demand provide particulars of their insurance cover to the claimant. It is a criminal offence not to do so.

  Police policy regarding the enforcement of section 154 is an operational matter for individual chief officers. The traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers has recently considered this issue and takes the view that there should be a readiness to treat every allegation under section 154 on its merits before deciding what, if any, police action might be taken.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what weight attaches to whether a child was conceived within a lawful marriage overseas in determining right of entry to the United Kingdom to join a parent who is a British national. [12491]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. A child may join a parent or parents who are present and settled in the United Kingdom provided the requirements of the immigration rules are met. It is not a requirement that the child was conceived within a lawful marriage.

  Alcopops
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the ages of the purchasers of alcopops. [12309]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As the Government's announcement on 17 July made clear, we are concerned about the misuse of all kinds of alcohol by those under age. There is a range of existing research and regular surveys which already cover various aspects of under-age drinking. We are looking carefully at whether additional research is required.

  Community Sentences
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders who withheld their consent from community sentences received custodial sentences in the most recent year for which figures are available. [12716]

  Mr. Michael
  Information is not collected centrally and no national data are available. However, the indications are that the number of offenders withholding consent to a community sentence is very small. For example, a recent survey of pre-sentence reports by Teesside probation service found that consent was withheld in only four of 854 cases. For those who do refuse consent, custody is the most likely sentence.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for new community sentences. [12715]
  749
  Mr. Michael
  This Government plan to increase the effectiveness of community sentences and the range of options available to the courts.

  On 1 October, new provisions came into effect allowing courts to impose an attendance centre order on fine defaulters who are aged under 25. Other provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 will be piloted in Norfolk and Greater Manchester from January next year. These include provisions allowing for the imposition of a community service order or curfew order on fine defaulters and persistent petty offenders, disqualification of offenders from driving regardless of the offence committed and the imposition of curfew orders of up to three-months duration on offenders under the age of 16.

  We are also studying other community sentence options which will reinforce the sentencing armoury, particularly with regards to youth crime. Our proposals for young offenders were set out in the consultation paper "Tackling Youth Crime" published in September. We will introduce an action plan order—which will be a focused and intensive intervention. There will also be a new reparation order which will require young people to make reparation to victims.

  Policemen (Salaries)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average salary of a policeman with five years' service. [12692]

  Mr. Michael
  Police pay in England and Wales is based on national pay scales. Pay rates are negotiated each year by the Police Negotiating Board and approved by the Secretary of State. The national salary for a constable with five years' service, with effect from 1 September 1997, is £19,434.

  Sentences
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his statement of 30 July,Official Report, column 257, if the explanation of what a sentence means in practice will be communicated to the victims of the crime concerned who are not present in court at the time sentence is passed. [12726]

  Mr. Michael
  The victims charter already provides for victims to be told, if they want to be, the final result of their offender's trial. Pilot projects to test how best this might be achieved have been running for several months and a full evaluation should be available by next spring. Before then, we will consider whether it might be practicable to include additional information about what the sentence means in practice.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his statement of 30 July,Official Report, column 257, if he will state what new bail conditions he proposes to introduce. [12713]

  Mr. Michael
  We propose to introduce two new bail conditions to deter bailed defendants from failing to appear in court or from failing to take the necessary steps to enable the case to proceed. The first measure will allow for the greater use of securities, to provide a stronger incentive for defendants to surrender to the custody of the court. The second measure will allow the courts to impose a condition of bail requiring a defendant to attend an 750
  interview with a legal representative in advance of a court hearing. Failure to obtain legal advice is one of the most common reasons for delay, resulting in ineffective first hearings and routine adjournments.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1), pursuant to his statement of 30 July,Official Report, column 257, what plans he has to assess the level of public confidence in his proposals for the courts to explain sentence lengths; [12602]

  (2) if (a) courts will be required to explain sentences and (b) the period of a sentence served in custody will relate more closely to the lengths of sentence passed under his proposals for honesty in sentencing. [12718]

  Mr. Michael
  Our proposal that the courts should spell out what each sentence really means in practice was a manifesto commitment which was endorsed by the electorate. The proposal is to enable the public to know how long an offender will spend in prison, the period of supervision after release, and the period during which he may be recalled to prison.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences covered by sentencing guidelines from the Court of Appeal. [12728]

  Mr. Michael
  It is difficult to draw up a definitive list of offences for which sentencing guidelines are currently available, since the form and content of sentencing guidelines differ and the Court of Appeal also provides guidance on the treatment of offences through its more general cases. However, guidelines providing general guidance to the courts on the treatment of particular criminal offences, and in some cases suggesting starting points for sentences, have been provided by the Court of Appeal for a number of categories of offences, including: most sexual offences, including rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, incest, indecent assault and buggery; drugs offences involving class A and class B drugs; robbery, theft and benefit fraud; public order offences, including riot, violent disorder and affray; and explosives offences.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his statement of 30 July,Official Report, column 257, (1) if the sentencing guidelines to be prepared by the Court of Appeal will operate in the lower courts in the same way as the sentencing guidelines which have already been laid down; [12703]

  (2) how the sentencing guidelines to be prepared by the Court of Appeal will affect the Magistrates' Association guidelines on sentencing; [12714]

  (3) if he will list those offences which will be covered by sentencing guidelines from the Court of Appeal. [12601]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed through their manifesto to placing a duty on the Court of Appeal to ensure there are sentencing guidelines for all the main offences. We are currently considering how best to take forward this commitment.
  751
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the Attorney-General's power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal for review. [12729]

  Mr. Michael
  We are in discussion with colleagues about the best way to implement our manifesto commitment to extend the Attorney-General's powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review where it appears to him that the sentence is unduly lenient.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals, apart from those of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, he has to ensure stricter punishment for serious repeat offenders. [12712]

  Mr. Michael
  Mr right hon. Friend's proposals were set out in his statement of 30 July to the House.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which year since 1967 the largest percentage increase in recorded crimes of violence against the person occurred. [12733]

  Mr. Michael
  The largest percentage increase was between 1968 and 1969 when violence against the person rose by 25 per cent.

  Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will invite the former Attorney-General to make available to the Macpherson inquiry notes of the meeting with two hon. Members and the Crown Prosecution Service following the withdrawal of proceedings against persons accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence; [12589]

  (2) if the Macpherson inquiry will be provided with details of earlier attacks thought to be connected with persons accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence. [12590]

  Mr. Michael
  The judicial inquiry will have powers under section 49 of the Police Act 1996 to summon any person to give evidence, to require the production of documents and to take evidence on oath. It is therefore a matter for Sir William Macpherson, the chairman of the inquiry, to decide which documents the inquiry requires.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an award in the memory of Stephen Lawrence. [12591]

  Mr. Michael
  When my right hon. Friend met Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence on 24 June, he told them that they would have his support if they wished to establish some form of memorial to their son Stephen.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average annual percentage change in recorded crime, excluding criminal damage valued at £20 and under between(a) 1967 and 1979 and (b) 1979 and 1996. [12734]

  Mr. Michael
  The average annual percentage change was 3.5 per cent. between 1967 and 1979 and 4.3 per cent. between 1979 and 1996.

  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) of 30 July,Official Report, columns 261–62, if he will set out the timetable for his review of section 4 (Minimum Sentences for Persistent House Burglars) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [12743]

  Mr. Michael
  We have no plans to review section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement on criminal justice on 30 July,Official Report, column 354, our position is the same as that announced by the previous Government in their White Paper, presented to the House in April 1996, which said:
  "The Government's objective is to implement the various proposals, taking account of the Parliamentary timetable, the need to provide additional prison places and the resource implications".

  It is not a question of a review, but of whether and when it is appropriate to take action, bearing in mind those considerations.

  Prisoners (Costs)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost of keeping a prisoner in custody in(a) a high security prison, (b) a normal security prison, (c) an open prison and (d) a young offenders institution in the last year for which figures are available. [12721]

  Ms Quin
  In the financial year 1996–97 the average cost for keeping a prisoner in custody was as shown in the table:

  Type of prison

  Cost per prisoner (£)

  Dispersals

  36,601

  Category B

  19,284

  Category C

  —

  Local

  —

  Open

  16,865

  Young offenders institution

  19,273

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [12556]

  Mr. Straw
  In the non-agency Home Office payments are made both centrally and locally. Central payments are processed by the Department's business accounting strategic system, BASS, which uses Ross Renaissance software; 98.31 per cent. of payments by value are processed via the bank automated clearing system. The
  753
  cost of processing central payments is estimated at £144,800. Payments to other Government Departments are made via Paymaster.

  Payments may also be made locally by cheque or, exceptionally, by cash. Information on the cost of processing local payments is not available.

  The Forensic Science Service is self accounting and is responsible for paying all of its suppliers for the services and goods it consumes. All payments are processed using the Systems Union accounting package, SUN. Of the payments made, 65.5 per cent. are via BACS the remainder being made by cheque. Any payments to other Government Departments are made by cheque. The cost of processing these payments is estimated at £48,000.

  Within the United Kingdom Passport Agency, payments are made centrally by cheque, using SUN accounting software supplied by Systems Union. This includes payments to all other Government Departments. Operation of the payment function of the SUN system, including staff costs, was approximately £34,250 in 1996–97.

  In the Prison Service payments are made both centrally and locally. Central payments are processed by the Prison Service's finance outstations and central unified system, FOCUS, which uses Tetra Chameleon software; 92.5 per cent. of payments by value are processed via BACS. The cost of processing central payments is estimated at £83,000; 98 per cent. of payments to other Government Departments are made via Paymaster.

  Payments are also made locally at establishments by cheque or, exceptionally, by cash. Information on the cost of processing local payments is not available.

  All Fire Service College payments are made locally at the college by cheque, except for expense claims under £10 which are paid in cash. All cheque payments are processed by the College's purchase ledger department, which uses CEDARDATA financial software; 89.2 per cent. of payments by value are paid by cheque, and payments to Her Majesty's Paymaster General in respect of loan interest is paid by Lloyds bank funds flow. The cost of processing all payments is estimated at £32,850.

  If my hon. Friend is interested in particular aspects of our payment processing systems, perhaps he would write to me with further details.

  Crime Clear-up and Conviction Rates
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the crime clear-up and conviction rates for each policy authority area in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [12588]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is given in the tables. These figures are not on a comparable basis 754
  because the clear-up data relate to the number of offences and the conviction rate date relate to the number of offenders.

  align="center">Table 1: Clear up rates for notifiable offences by police force area 1995 and 19961

  Police force area

  1995

  1996

  Avon and Somerset

  23

  24

  Bedfordshire

  22

  33

  Cambridgeshire

  19

  24

  Cheshire

  31

  34

  Cleveland

  25

  24

  Cumbria

  40

  36

  Derbyshire

  20

  21

  Devon and Cornwall

  27

  30

  Dorset

  28

  27

  Durham

  30

  30

  Essex

  33

  29

  Gloucestershire

  27

  23

  Greater Manchester

  24

  17

  Hampshire

  28

  28

  Hertfordshire

  28

  30

  Humberside

  19

  20

  Kent

  26

  32

  Lancashire

  34

  33

  Leicestershire

  29

  31

  Lincolnshire

  39

  42

  London, City of

  23

  27

  Merseyside

  27

  29

  Metropolitan Police

  25

  23

  Norfolk

  31

  32

  Northamptonshire

  28

  34

  Northumbria

  23

  24

  North Yorkshire

  23

  25

  Nottinghamshire

  23

  28

  South Yorkshire

  24

  23

  Staffordshire

  32

  34

  Suffolk

  34

  33

  Surrey

  31

  29

  Sussex

  28

  29

  Thames Valley

  23

  25

  Warwickshire

  25

  24

  West Mercia

  28

  26

  West Midlands

  24

  23

  West Yorkshire

  21

  24

  Wiltshire

  32

  29

  England

  26

  26

  Dyfed Powys

  57

  58

  Gwent

  50

  50

  North Wales

  32

  33

  South Wales

  29

  32

  Wales

  34

  37

  England and Wales

  26

  26

  1 Per cent. of recorded crimes cleared up by police.

  align="center">Table 2: Conviction rates1 for indictable offences by police force area 1995 and 19962

  Police force area

  1995

  19962

  Avon and Somerset

  61

  55

  Bedfordshire

  61

  65

  Cambridgeshire

  61

  61

  Cheshire

  72

  71

  Cleveland

  65

  61

  Cumbria

  70

  70

  Derbyshire

  65

  62

  Devon and Cornwall

  64

  63

  Dorset

  65

  65

  755

  align="center">Table 2: Conviction rates1 for indictable offences by police force area 1995 and 19962

  Police force area

  1995

  19962

  Durham

  66

  66

  Essex

  66

  64

  Gloucestershire

  63

  65

  Greater Manchester

  69

  69

  Hampshire

  68

  68

  Hertfordshire

  63

  66

  Humberside

  73

  69

  Kent

  83

  83

  Lancashire

  67

  65

  Leicestershire

  55

  59

  Lincolnshire

  74

  70

  London, City of

  56

  62

  Merseyside

  60

  62

  Metropolitan Police

  65

  65

  Norfolk

  88

  83

  Northamptonshire

  58

  59

  Northumbria

  64

  64

  North Yorkshire

  74

  70

  Nottinghamshire

  62

  61

  South Yorkshire

  67

  69

  Staffordshire

  62

  61

  Suffolk

  67

  65

  Surrey

  69

  69

  Sussex

  69

  66

  Thames Valley

  60

  61

  Warwickshire

  64

  66

  West Mercia

  68

  67

  West Midlands

  62

  61

  West Yorkshire

  62

  60

  Wiltshire

  78

  86

  England

  65

  65

  Dyfed Powys

  57

  57

  Gwent

  64

  61

  North Wales

  70

  68

  South Wales

  60

  61

  Wales

  62

  62

  England and Wales

  65

  65

  1 Number of offenders convicted at all courts as a proportion per cent. of defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts.

  2 Provisional.

  Fire Service Pensions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to publish the review of fire service pensions; and if he will make a statement. [12741]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have undertaken to publish the review as a basis for consultation with fire service interests on the future arrangement for fire service pensions. It will be issued as soon as is practicable.

HEALTH

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many experimental studies at Huntingdon Life Sciences have been invalidated as a result of his Department's investigation; and what was the fate of the animals involved. [12297]

  Ms Jowell
  The United Kingdom's Good Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority has investigated Huntingdon Life Sciences. The authority decided that five 756
  toxicity studies within the dog toxicology unit did not meet good laboratory practice standards. The authority has required the company to notify each study's sponsors accordingly.

  On completion of the studies, the dogs will be put down humanely in accordance with normal practice.

  Abortion Act 1967
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the working of the Abortion Act 1967. [12579]

  Ms Jowell
  Data on all terminations of pregnancy and the non-national health service places which provide abortion continue to be monitored by the Department.

  Hospital Beds (Reopening Costs)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of reopening a bed in a general ward of a hospital. [12693]

  Mr. Milburn
  The costs would depend on a number of factors including geographical location, the level of staffing required to open the bed, when the bed was required—weekend or overnight.

  Nurses' Salaries
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average salary of a nurse with five years' experience. [12694]

  Mr. Milburn
  Nurses' salaries are dependent on a wide range of factors such as grade and length of service. It is therefore not possible to provide the average salary of a nurse with five years' experience. However, current salary rates are published in advance letter (NM) 1/97, copies of which are available in the Library. Additionally, new earnings survey figures for 1996 show that the average gross weekly earnings of a full-time nurse on adult rates was £325.70.

  Operation Costs
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost of(a) a hip replacement operation, (b) a cataract operation and (c) a heart bypass operation in the last year for which figures are available. [12723]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is given in the following table:

  align="center">Average costs

  Operation

  In-patient case £

  Day case £

  Hip replacement1

  primary

  3,290

  —

  revision

  4,330

  —

  Cataract2

  900

  475

  Coronary artery by-pass graft

  5,930

  —

  1 1996–97

  2 1994–95

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total expenditure on official hospitality by his Department to date in the current session. [12582]

  Mr. Milburn
  Expenditure on hospitality for the period 1 May 1997 to 30 September 1997 is as follows.

  £

  Department

  41,803

  Agencies

  7,159

  Total

  48,962

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each of the functions relating to payment for goods 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. [12558]

  Mr. Milburn
  The process for making payments for goods and services forms the latter part of the purchasing process. The Department of Health has developed procurement procedures based upon guidance issued by Her Majesty's Treasury and those procedures are designed to ensure probity and fairness in procurement decisions. The processing of payments and the issue of payable instruments form part of the Department's accounting systems. The procedures for both placing orders and making payments to suppliers requires the necessary certification and authorisation that ensures an adequate separation of duties, thus conforming with Government accounting.

  The Department does not use sub-contractors for payment work nor have co-operative arrangements with other departments for the payment of goods and services. The payment of welfare foods benefit does involve both the Benefit Agency in the issue of welfare milk tokens and a contractor to authorise payments against surrendered tokens. The Benefits Agency also authorises payments on the Department's behalf in respect of European Economic Area medical costs.

  The Department's accounting system is based on a proprietary accounting package—Sun Accounts—amended by departmental staff to meet specific needs. The Department makes some 180,000 payments a year, which include payments to health authorities, local authorities, non-departmental public bodies and voluntary organisations. Payments to other Government Departments and health authorities are made by means of transfers. Whenever possible, other payments are made by means of bank automated clearing system and the remainder are paid by payable order.

  The accounts payable and cashiering applications which support departmental payments form part of the accounting system and specific capital and development costs of the computer systems are not therefore readily available. The salary costs of providing a cashiering service are estimated to be £216,000 for 1997–98.
  758
  The Department has four executive agencies and the following table summarises the position of each.

  Medicines Control Agency

  Medical Devices Agency

  NHS Estates Agency

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Contracting arrangements for payments

  None

  None

  None

  The payment of medical fees to independent advisers form part of the total service provided

  Co-operative arrangements with other government departments

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Estimated costs of making payments

  £105,000

  £30,000

  £40,000

  £15,000

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the independent review panel considering the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital will be allowed a fully day for visits and discussions at the hospital. [12294]

  Mr. Milburn
  The review panel visited the Royal Hospitals NHS trust on 4 September 1997 for a full day. This included visits to the St. Bartholomew's hospital and Royal London hospital sites. The members of the panel also made further visits to the London chest hospital, St. Bartholomew's and other London sites later that month.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements made by the Royal Hospitals NHS trust for the independent review panel to visit St. Bartholomew's hospital. [12293]

  Mr. Milburn
  Ministers have not been involved in the detailed arrangements made for visits by the independent review panel, but we understand that the arrangements for the panel's visit to the Royal Hospitals NHS trust on 4 September 1997 were satisfactory.

  Liverpool Blood Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be announcing his decision about the future of the Liverpool blood transfusion service; and if he will make a statement. [12287]

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received(a) directly and (b) indirectly from clinicians and their professional associations since 1 May in respect of the proposals to remove blood processing and testing from the Liverpool blood centre; and if he will publish those representations. [12295]
  759
  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced the setting up of an independent review into clinical concerns raised about the proposals for the transfer of bulk processing and testing of blood from Liverpool to Manchester. Professor John Cash, president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and former director of the blood transfusion service in Scotland, is leading that review.

  On 8 September, Professor Cash submitted an urgent interim report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in which he advised that, given that the original plans were then largely implemented, and in particular the run-down of experienced and skilled staff in the Liverpool centre,
  "it is now in the best interests of patients in Merseyside and the surrounding area that the transfer of bulk blood processing and testing to Manchester goes ahead as planned on 19 September."
  On 9 September, the Secretary of State announced his reluctant acceptance of that recommendation on grounds of patient safety.

  However, the Secretary of State also made it clear that that was not the end of the matter. Professor Cash is to make a final report in November, when he will advise on how blood services can be developed to meet the needs of people in Merseyside and the surrounding areas as well as the requirements of local clinicians. Meanwhile, two steps have already been taken to aid that development. In line with the interim recommendations made by Professor Cash, the Secretary of State announced in September the appointment of two experts, Professor Alistair Bellingham and Dr. Ian Gilmore, to two critical new posts. Their respective roles are transition director of the Liverpool blood centre, and chair of a Merseyside and area clinical user group set up to monitor the quality of blood services in Merseyside and north Wales. Both Professor Bellingham and Dr. Gilmore have an important part to play in working with local clinicians to ensure the safety and the reliability of the supply of blood components to local hospitals.

  We shall decide what further measures may be required when we have seen Professor Cash's final report.

  As regards the number of representations which Ministers have received from clinicians on this issue, as I said in my reply to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on 1 July, column 145, separate records are not kept of the particular categories of people who make such representations. We estimate, however, that we have received around 24 representations from different clinicians or their professional associations since 1 May 1997. Copies have been passed to Professor Cash for him to consider as part of his review. They will not be published separately.

  Dental Access Fund
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government proposes to repeat the provision of the dental access fund for 1997–98. [12755]

  Mr. Milburn
  No. On 9 September, we announced the "Investing in Dentistry" initiative, which makes available up to £9 million in 1997–98 to help dentists expand 760
  existing or set up new practices in areas of the country where there are particular problems with the availability of national health service dental services.

  NHS Trusts (Board Meetings)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health what steps he took to consult NHS trusts before issuing his instructions to hold board meetings in public. [12797]

  Mr. Milburn
  In reaching his decision, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health took account of the fact that all health authorities and a significant proportion of national health service trusts already hold board meetings in public.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from NHS trust boards following his instructions to hold board meetings in public; and if he will publish the content of these submissions. [12796]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of letters about trust board meetings, both in favour and against. It is for those making the representations to decide whether they should be published.

  Ambulance Service Personnel
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State of Health how many ambulance service personnel have taken early retirement on health grounds in each of the last five years; and what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the subject; and if he will make a statement. [12775]

  Mr. Milburn
  In the five-year period up to 24 February 1997, the national health service pension scheme awarded ill-health retirement benefits to 2,576 ambulance personnel retiring from NHS ambulance trusts in England and Wales. A year-on-year breakdown is not available.

  In the last five years, the Department of Health has not commissioned any research on ambulancemen retiring early from the NHS on health grounds.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of items prescribed to individuals aged 65 years and over in each year since 1985. [12794]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is available in the statistical bulletins,Statistics of prescriptions dispensed in the Family Health Service Authorities: England 1985 to 1995, (statistical bulletin in 1996/17 July 1996) and Statistics of prescriptions dispensed in the community: England 1986 to 1996, (statistical bulletin 1997/15 July 1997), both of which are available in the Library. Before 20 October 1995, the term "elderly people" meant women aged 60 years or over and men aged 65 and over. Since then, however, men aged 60 and over are also included in this group, but the population figures for 1995 are still for men aged 65 years and over and women aged 60 and over. The 1985 to 1990 prescription data are based on fees, while 1991–1995 prescription data are based on items.

  H. Pylori
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reimburse general practitioners for testing for H. pylori. [12780]

  Mr. Milburn
  Under the terms of a general practitioner's cost plus contract, all expenses incurred in the delivery of general medical services are reimbursed either directly to the general practitioner who incurs the cost or indirectly, at the average for the profession as a whole, through fees and allowances.

  General practitioners are free to use any of the test kits for H. pylori if they feel it clinically appropriate, and the profession will receive reimbursement for their costs through fees and allowances.

  The Government have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United Kingdom resulted from contaminated implements during surgical procedures. [12493]

  Ms Jowell
  In the United Kingdom two incidents involving a total of three patients are known where Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is presumed to have been transmitted by neurosurgical instruments. Both incidents occurred in the 1950s.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's latest figures for trends in suspected and confirmed cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United Kingdom. [12492]

  Ms Jowell
  The latest figures on the number of cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, including new variant CJD, in the United Kingdom were published in a Department of Health press release on 6 October 1997, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The fifth annual report of the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit published on 15 September 1997 showed that there has been an increase in the number of cases of classic sporadic CJD recorded in England and Wales for the period 1970 to April 1996, with the greatest increase reported in those over the age of 75. Substantial increases in the reported incidence of classic CJD have also been observed in other countries which monitor the disease, including countries where bovine spongiform encephalopathy is rare or absent. These increases are most likely to reflect improved case ascertainment, especially in the older age groups, rather than a real increase in the disease.

  GP Fundholder Budget Allocations
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the outcomes of the appeals process for fundholder budget allocations for the past five years by regional office, showing how many appeals found in favour of(a) GP fundholders and (b) regional offices for each area. [12486]

  Mr. Milburn
  When a fundholding practice receives its proposed budget offer for the coming year, the regulations require it to notify the health authority whether or not it 762
  accepts the offer. Although this is not a formal appeals process established by regulations, in practice most rejections are treated as appeals by regional offices. Similar procedures were followed before April 1996, when regional health authorities were responsible for budget offers.

  Information is available on the results of such "appeals" in respect of budget proposals for 1996–97 and 1997–98. A table summarising this information is as follows.

  align="center">Summary of representations on GPFH/Regional Office budget allocations 1996–97–1997–98

  1996–97 Principally in favour of

  1997–98 Principally in favour of

  GPFH

  RO

  GPFH

  RO

  Northern and Yorkshire

  2

  8

  10

  31

  Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Anglia and Oxford

  —

  1

  1

  7

  West Midlands

  1

  1

  2

  3

  South and West

  1

  11

  8

  16

  North Thames

  3

  6

  1

  1

  South Thames

  5

  27

  1

  38

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  12

  54

  23

  98

  These figures are not strictly comparable between regions due to different methods of dealing with likely problems in the setting of budgets. Some regions have a policy of addressing differences between the policy of the health authority and the fundholder to resolve disputes before a formal offer is made. In addition where a multifund (where a larger number of fundholders join together to apply the budget) have appealed en-masse, this might be counted as one appeal, or as individual appeals.

  Often an appeal has no definite resolution for either side—elements of both arguments my be accepted, and the decision does not, in reality, come down one way or another. However, where a decision by the RO has been largely in favour of the GPFH this is reflected in the table.

  Source:

  NHS Executive Regional Offices

  Maternity Services (North Staffordshire)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what changes in procedures to maternity services have been introduced in north Staffordshire in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [12350]

  (2) if he will investigate staffing levels at the North Staffordshire maternity unit during holiday periods, weekends and between 5 pm and 9 am weekdays; and if he will make a statement; [12351]

  (3) what investigations have been undertaken into maternity services and procedures in north Staffordshire. [12766]

  Ms Jowell
  Following concerns expressed by staff working within the trust, North Staffordshire Hospital NHS trust conducted a management review of maternity services, which reported in May 1997. As a result of this review, a number of improvements have been implemented by the trust to both procedures and staffing arrangements, including the introduction of a new model of woman-centred care, additional staff in community midwifery, and improved cover arrangements at labour suites. There are no reductions in staffing at weekends or on bank holidays. All these changes are aimed at improving maternity services for patients.

  Brain-damaged Babies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of babies were born with brain damage in North Staffordshire in each of the last five years; [12349]

  (2) if he will publish figures on the incidence of babies born with brain damage in north Staffordshire in each of the last five years. [12765]

  Mr. Boateng
  The estimate, from the latest available data, of the percentage of babies born in North Staffordshire reported as having infantile brain damage is as follows:

  Percentage

  1989–90

  0.3

  1990–91

  0.4

  1991–92

  0.6

  1992–93

  0.4

  1993–94

  0.1

  1994–95

  0.5

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Note:

  Infantile brain damage is defined using the following International Classification of Diseases Codes Ninth Revision (ICD 9).

  Infantile cerebral palsy: 343.0 to 9.

  Birth trauma:

  767.0 Subdural and cerebral haemorrhage.

  779.0 Convulsions in newborn.

  779.1 Other and unspecified cerebral irritability in newborn.

  779.2 Cerebral depression, coma and other abnormal cerebral signs.

  Corticosteroids
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines his Department issues to GPs prescribing systemic corticosteroids to patients who(a) have not been exposed to chickenpox and (b) are pregnant; and if he will make a statement; [12924]

  (2) if he will estimate how many and what percentage of people using corticosteroids carry a steroid treatment card; and if he will make a statement. [12926]

  Mr. Milburn
  Guidance on prescribing issues, including the use of systematic corticosteroids, is available to general practitioners from a variety of sources. Publications funded by the Department include the British National Formulary, which is regularly updated and provides advice for all doctors on the choice and safe use of corticosteroids. Copies of the BNF are available in the Library.

  No information is available on the number of people using corticosteroids who carry steroid treatment cards.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from chickenpox in each of the last five years, indicating those cases in which the deceased had been using systematic corticosteroids when infected; and if he will make a statement. [12925]
  764
  Ms Jowell
  The number of deaths from chickenpox in England and Wales reported to the Office for National Statistics are given in the following table:

  Mortality for chickenpox in England and Wales 1992–96

  Year

  Number of persons

  1992

  27

  1993

  30

  1994

  23

  1995

  22

  1996

  39

  Since 1993, ONS codes all the diseases, injuries, drugs, operations and external causes mentioned on death certificates by the certifying doctor or coroner, in addition to the underlying cause of death. Only one of the 114 deaths certified as due to chickenpox, from 1993 to 1996 inclusive, explicitly mentioned the use of corticosteroids. The timing of the drug treatment in relation to the date of infection is not available.

  Iproniazid
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the link between iproniazid use and fatal liver damage; and if he will make a statement. [12908]

  Ms Jowell
  There are no current United Kingdom marketing authorisations for iproniazid. We are not aware of any research being undertaken in the UK into iproniazid.

  The main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research is the Medical Council. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant in aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The council is not funding any research into iproniazid and fatal liver damage, and its scientific advisors are not aware of any other research on the topic.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the members of the Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority and(a) their qualifications, (b) their other paid or voluntary employment and (c) their other current appointments; [12900]

  (2) on what date membership of the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority was finalised; and if he will make a statement. [12901]

  Mr. Boateng
  The membership of the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority was announced through a Department of Health press release on 14 March 1997. No further appointments to the authority have been made. Details of its members,
  765
  including their qualifications, their main paid employment and their membership of other Government committees are as follows:

  CHAIRMAN
  The Rt. Rev. and Rt. Hon. Lord HABGOOD of Calverton MA PhD
  Retired, former Archbishop of York.

  MEMBERS
  Mr John DARK MB BS, FRCS (Edin), FRCS (Eng)
  Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon, Director (Cardio-Pulm, Transplants)
  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle.
  Professor Herb SEWELL MB ChB, BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCP (Glas), FRCPath
  Professor of Immunology Nottingham University.
  Formerly a Member of the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation
  Professor George GRIFFIN BSc (hons), PhD, MBBS
  Professor of Infectious Disease, St. George's Hosp. Member of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, Member of the Public Health Laboratory Service Board.
  Dr Maggy JENNINGS BSc, PhD
  Head of Research Animals Department, RSPCA
  Dr Janet M DEWDNEY OBE, BVSc, MRCVS, PhD, FI Biol, FRC Path
  Chairman, AdProTech plc.
  Professor Sheila MCLEAN LL B, M Litt, PhD, FRSE, FRSA
  Professor Law and Ethics in Medicine, Glasgow University. Member, Scottish Higher Education Council, Secretary of State Appointee to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, Appointed to undertake a Review of the current provisions in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, "Consent and the Law".
  Mrs Jean GAFFIN OBE, JP, BSc, MSc
  Executive Director of the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Service.
  Dr David COOK MA, Phd
  Director, Whitefield Institute, Oxford. Fellow and Chaplain, Green College, Oxford.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations his Department has received(a) supporting and (b) against xenotransplantation during the consultation period on his Department's advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation report; and if he will make a statement. [12902]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following the publication of "Animal Tissue into Humans", the report of the advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation, a consultation exercise was held which asked for submissions on several aspects of xenotransplantation, including the science and its 766
  regulation. Some 51 responses have been received. These contained detailed analysis of the issues raised by the report and cannot be classed as being either for or against xenotransplantation. Copies of all those responses not made in confidence will be placed in the Library in due course, following consideration of the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority's advice. In addition to the responses to the consultation exercise, we have received around 15,000 postcards registering opposition to xentransplantation on both medical and ethical grounds.

  Artificial Organ Transplants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many transplants involving artificial organs have been carried out in each of the last 10 years, broken down by health authority district; and if he will make a statement. [12907]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been several small trials of artificial organs as alternatives to organ transplantation, but, so far, none of the available artificial organs offers a satisfactory alternative.

  Novelty Condoms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the health risk posed by the availability of novelty condoms from vending machines in entertainment venues and public lavatories; and if he will make a statement; [12916]

  (2) what plans he has to restrict the availability of novelty condoms from vending machines in entertainment venues and public lavatories; [12917]

  (3) if he will meet representatives from the medical profession and AIDS charities to discuss the risk posed by the availability of novelty condoms in vending machines in entertainment venues and public lavatories; and if he will make a statement. [12918]

  Ms Jowell
  Novelty condoms are not recommended for use as a barrier to HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases or as a contraceptive. The Department of Health advises the public to use only condoms which carry either the British Standards Institute kitemark or the European CE mark. As novelty condoms are not classed as medical devices under the Medical Devices Regulations 1994, they should not carry the CE mark, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health cannot use his enforcement powers under these regulations to restrict their availability. However, any confusion and risk to health caused by novelty condoms being mistaken for genuine condoms would come within the scope of the General Product Safety Regulations 1994, which are enforced by local authority trading standards officers, if there is a significant risk that a novelty condom could be confused with the genuine article and give rise to the transmission of disease then, in the absence of adequate warnings about the hazard, the product could be deemed to be unsafe under the regulations.
  767
  We have not received any representations from the medical profession or AIDS charities to discuss novelty condoms, but we would be happy to consider such a request if approached.

  Asbestosis
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the diagnostic features in the classification of asbestosis recognised by his Department. [12943]

  Mr. Boateng
  Diagnosis is a professional issue and we would look to the health care professions to provide guidance on it.

  Organ, Blood and Bone Marrow Donation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on introducing an opt-out scheme allowing the surgical removal of organs unless the deceased has registered an objection in advance; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement. [12909]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 20 May 1997 at columns 504–05.

  Ministers have met interested members of the medical profession and voluntary organisations involved in organ donation and transplantation to discuss this and other issues. Ministers have also received four letters on this subject from hon. Members and a number of letters from the public generally, in every case, our response has been that all views will be considered carefully before reaching a decision but that any steps taken must command public confidence.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate(a) how many and (b) what percentage of people in England (i) carry a donor card and (ii) are registered on the NHS organ donor register. [12903]

  Mr. Boateng
  Organ donor cards have been distributed freely by many organisations over the last 25 years. No record has ever been kept of who may possess them. However, public opinion surveys show consistently that around 30 per cent. of the population claim to carry an organ donor card.

  At 18 October 1997, there were 3,685,000 English residents on the national health service organ donor register—7.6 per cent. of the population.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a scheme of paid leave entitlements for those donating bone marrow; and if he will make a statement. [12869]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to introduce a scheme of paid leave entitlements for those donating bone marrow. There are two bone marrow donation registers in this country; the British bone marrow register which recruits from blood donors and is funded 768
  through the national health service, and the Anthony Nolan bone marrow register which is funded and run by the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust. Both registers meet all reasonable expenses of donors, including travelling and accommodation expenses and compensation for loss of earnings.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to encourage people to(a) carry donor cards, (b) register on the NHS organ donor register (c) give blood and (d) donate bone marrow; and if he will make a statement; [12904]

  (2) if he will estimate how much has been spent on promoting (a) the use of donor cards, (b) the NHS organ donor register, (c) blood donation and (d) bone marrow donation in each of the last 10 years. [12905]

  Mr. Boateng
  No information is available on Department of Health publicity campaigns before 1989–90. No information is available about the sums spent on promoting bone marrow donation over the last 10 years, but some associated costs may be contained within the blood publicity budget. The information available is provided in the table. Within the organ donation publicity budget, it is not possible to identify separately the amounts spent on individual campaigns.

  There are continuing campaigns to encourage positive attitudes towards tissue donation. During this year, the Department is promoting a wide range of measures designed to increase the number of regular blood donors through raising awareness of the need to maintain supplies of blood to hospitals. This includes the launch this year of a new three to five year publicity strategy, designed to increase the current donor base and thereby reduce the need for emergency appeals, and the development of an information pack for secondary schools, for use in association with the national curriculum, which we hope will help to secure the future donor base.

  The over-riding aim of organ donation publicity campaigns is to encourage people to discuss their donation wishes with their families. Knowing the views of the deceased in advance makes it easier for relatives to agree that organs may be donated. People are also encouraged to register their wishes by joining the computerised NHS organ donor register, established in 1994. This register builds on earlier work to promote organ donor cards, which are still distributed with the NHS organ donor register leaflets. We are considering how best to use publicity monies to encourage donation.

  Bone marrow donors are recruited through two organisations. The British bone marrow register is funded through the NHS and recruits from blood donors at blood donation sessions. The Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Trust is a charity funded by voluntary giving and recruits donors from the general public through local and national publicity campaigns.
  769

  align="right">£000

  National blood publicity

  Organ donation

  1989–90 outturn

  641

  252

  1990–91 outturn

  731

  228

  1991–92 outturn

  1,032

  211

  1992–93 outturn

  983

  1,992

  1993–94 outturn

  1,578

  1,313

  1994–95 outturn

  1,145

  1,579

  1995–96 outturn

  1,345

  1,653

  1996–97 outturn

  1,199

  1,225

  Total

  8,654

  8,453

  1997–98 (estimate)

  1,218

  996

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he plans to introduce to dissuade children from taking up smoking; and if he will make a statement. [12927]

  Ms Jowell
  The rise in smoking by young people, particularly teenage girls, is a grave concern. Measures directed at reducing children's smoking will be set out in the White Paper on tobacco control to be published next year.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Lord Morris of Manchester
The Right Honourable Alfred Morris, having been created Baron Morris of Manchester, of Manchester in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rix and the Lord Ashley of Stoke.
Lord Garel-Jones
The Right Honourable William Armand Thomas Tristan Garel-Jones, having been created Baron Garel-Jones, of Watford in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Viscount Cranborne and the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
Clive Brooke, Esquire, having been created Baron Brooke of Alverthorpe, of Alverthorpe in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gladwin of Clee and the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
2.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will request that the United Nations Conference on the Environment undertakes a comparative analysis of the various risks, nuclear, environmental and other, facing humankind with a view to the formulation of international policies calculated to give world civilisation the best possible chance of surviving.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, better known as the Rio Earth Summit, agreed a comprehensive blueprint known as Agenda 21 designed to achieve worldwide sustainable development. In June in New York a special session of the United Nations adopted a programme of action for the next five years with the aim of accelerating the implementation of Agenda 21. This was based on a
876
detailed analysis by the UN system of progress made since Rio and the challenges facing the world, including in areas of particular interest to my noble friend such as radioactive waste.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that Answer which is, frankly, more encouraging than I had expected. However, we are here, as the gracious Writ which has recently been read draws to our attention, to consider the difficulties and dangers of current affairs. That is precisely what this Question and the Answer of my noble friend address. I hope that my noble friend will consider my next point. I am aware, of course, of some of the work which has been done, but so far I believe there has been no attempt to make a comparative analysis. I recognise the difficulty of that, but it is important that such a thing should be attempted. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us that such an attempt is not beyond the range of the United Nations conference.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in my reply to my noble friend I mentioned that a detailed analysis by the UN system has already taken place. We share my noble friend's concern with regard to the importance of the UK commitment to environmental protection. Therefore the Government have identified Agenda 21 as one of the main vehicles for achieving that protection. The Prime Minister made it clear in New York that we must bring international, national and domestic agencies into play.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the objective of sound environmental management for the world community as a whole is to be achieved it will be essential that the countries of the developing world and third world play their part? For that to be possible, does my noble friend agree that it will be essential to ensure a transfer of resources to the third world to enable it to introduce environmentally friendly policies? Will she assure the House that significance will be attributed to this crucial issue in the forthcoming White Paper on development?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, proposals have been made with regard to following up discussions held at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting which has just concluded in Edinburgh. The matter that the noble Lord mentioned was discussed in some detail. The Edinburgh Commonwealth economic declaration contains a strong and clear message on the environment. Heads of Government stressed that it is incumbent upon the global community to strengthen co-operation on sustainable development. They underlined the need for a successful outcome of the forthcoming Kyoto conference. Commonwealth Heads of Government also discussed the importance of working to halve the proportion of people in extreme poverty by the year 2015, and to seek to reverse the decline in

877
development assistance, recognising the role of the ODA as an essential instrument of partnership for promoting development and for poverty reduction.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the increasing concern of research scientists who find that endocrine disruptors, for example, DDT and its breakdown products, pthalates, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides, cause tremendous trouble because they pass to the foetus through the placenta and to new born babies through breast milk? They cause reproductive problems and cancer in the reproductive organs of both males and females. This is a worldwide problem. Will Her Majesty's Government consider asking the multinational chemical companies to fund research to make sure that their products are safe and do not have long-term effects on the reproductive systems of the human race?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for that question. As regards approaching international companies with a view to establishing specific research, I prefer to write to the noble Countess with details of work that is being done and approaches that could be followed in the future. The Government have analysed risks as regards endocrine disruptive products. We are taking a leading role in international activities to evaluate the risks of such endocrine disruptors. If serious risks to people or to wildlife are identified, precautionary action will be taken at an early stage.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that given the previous government's undertakings on nuclear and environmental issues, including the negotiation of the comprehensive test ban treaty and the preparation of a detailed strategy for meeting our Rio commitments, Britain is in a unique position to lead the world by example in developing sustainable development policies? How does the Minister intend to encourage the United States to follow suit?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is obviously extremely important to the Government to work in co-operation with all other countries. I am having trouble reading my brief as I am unable to see without my glasses. I shall try to find the appropriate response. I apologise for that. I shall write to the noble Lord. The US recognition that this issue must be addressed is welcome. We are pleased that the US has now put a proposal on the table for the Kyoto conference. The real negotiations can now start. Obviously we should like the US to do more, but it has made a welcome first step. Both the UK and the EU have welcomed the stance of the US. We shall encourage it to seek to meet the EU target with regard to a 15 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2010.

Nuclear Warheads
2.59 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many nuclear warheads they have at present and how many they propose to maintain when the planned Trident fleet is complete.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I am withholding the information concerning current nuclear warhead numbers under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to government information relating to defence, security and international relations. Our future deterrence requirements, including warhead numbers, are being examined in the Strategic Defence Review.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that singularly uninformative reply. Can he explain to the House what the effect, if any, would be on the deterrent value which the Government attach to these weapons of publishing their numbers, as was recommended in 1993 by his right honourable friend who is now the Foreign Secretary, and is favoured, I believe, by the Council for Arms Control of which the noble Lord himself is a trustee?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged, as ever, to the noble and gallant Lord for pointing out that the information I failed to give the House was identical to the kind that he would have briefed Ministers to give in his period of distinguished service as Chief of Defence Staff.
Precisely the questions to which he has referred are being considered in the defence review: that is, whether or not we shall be in a position to give more information along the lines the noble and gallant Lord requires.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that any increase in the number of warheads will have a deleterious effect on the remainder of the defence budget? Will he please consider whether this money would be better spent elsewhere within the defence budget?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no proposals for increasing the warhead numbers which were announced by the previous government.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister inform the House what percentage of defence expenditure is attributable to the Trident programme and whether he regards it as good value for money?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, when "Vengeance" is rolled out and becomes fully operational—it should be rolled out in the middle of next year—the annual operating costs of the Trident system will be probably of the order of £200 million, which is rather less than 1 per cent. of the total defence budget. Bearing in mind

879
that Trident will then be performing the role that used also to be performed by the WE-177 bombs, I regard it as excellent value for money.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the greatest issues facing us all is that of proliferation; and that it is essential for the future of humanity that we win more convincing and positive support for the non-proliferation treaty? In that context, while many of us have nothing but full support for the Government's general policy in this sphere, will my noble friend therefore agree that it is crucial to demonstrate to the world that we shall deploy on Trident no more missiles and no more warheads than is absolutely essential for the policy we have enunciated?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have no difficulty in giving my noble friend precisely the assurances he requests. As I pointed out a few moments ago, with the elimination of the WE-177 free-fall bombs, Trident will be performing both a strategic and sub-strategic role. Therefore we are gaining two assets, as it were, for the price of one.
I should also like to say this to my noble friend. It is equally important that we try to do something about the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction in addition to that of nuclear warheads.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's request to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that he await the defence review, will the Minister please tell the House the purpose of the two-day debate on defence being held today in another place and the debate in this House next week? We find ourselves in some difficulty since we do not know what will be in the defence review.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment to his new position. I look forward to jousting with him for many months in our respective positions.
As I am sure the noble Lord realises, the Strategic Defence Review has two parts. The first part is virtually concluded and I must not anticipate the remarks of my right honourable friend in another place. The first part was Foreign Office led and related to discussions about the roles and responsibilities which we think it appropriate for this country to assume for the next 20 or so years ahead.
The second part relates to the assets necessary to fulfil those responsibilities and the resources necessary to procure those assets.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the £200 million running costs include the amortisation of the capital cost of Trident?
880
Will he also say whether it will be possible for Trident to be used independently—that is, independent of the United States satellite guidance systems?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is unambiguously yes.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with great respect, I think that we should move on to the third question, in particular as my noble friend has had one bite at this cherry this afternoon.

National Health Service: Integrated Healthcare
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to promote integrated healthcare in the National Health Service over the next four and a half years.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, there are several different definitions of integrated healthcare. However, I believe that the noble Baroness refers to the publication of a document entitled Integrated Health Care—The Way Forward for the Next Five Years? produced by the Foundation for Integrated Medicine. It was launched by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales at a lecture last week which both the noble Baroness and I attended. The Government welcome the publication. We shall be considering the report in great detail and with great care. Department of Health officials are arranging meetings with its main authors to discuss the detailed proposals.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful Answer. What proposals have Her Majesty's Government for establishing relevant centres for integrated healthcare?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will be aware, at this stage the report is a discussion document with no special policy indications within it. As I said in my Answer to her Question, we are discussing all the issues carefully. We shall look at the ways in which some of the healthcare suggested by the report could best be offered. My colleague, Professor Swales, who is the director of research at the Department of Health, will be meeting Professor Stephen Holgate, the main author of the research issues contained in the report, within the next few weeks.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is the Minister aware that more and more general practitioners are now referring patients with skeletal and locomotor disorders to osteopaths and chiropractors, especially in the light

881
of the comprehensive training programmes and the rigid control of qualifications which now exist in those professions with statutory regulation? It is now possible for general practitioners who are fundholders to cover the costs of such referrals. Is it the Government's policy that a similar facility will be available to GPs who will be involved in commissioning in the future?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for the great help he has given to successive governments precisely in the area of appropriate regulation in these complementary therapies. Yes, indeed, our plans to reform the internal market, which will place greater emphasis on local co-operation and participation in the commissioning of healthcare, should make those services more responsive to patients' needs and wishes. The fact that it was exclusively patients of individual fundholders who benefited in some places from the offer of complementary therapy was not considered satisfactory. We wish to broaden that.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in view of the variety of definitions of integrated healthcare, will the Minister confirm whether her department is looking at the American model of integrated healthcare? It combines disease management and pharmaceutical benefits management and is leading to a number of innovative healthcare solutions.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for providing another definition. One could also say that integrated healthcare might be health and social care. Indeed, the American model of disease management is of great interest. It is something that the Department of Health is looking at.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the problem of antibiotics becoming resistant to various infections, what research is being undertaken on alternatives to antibiotics?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on the detail in answer to her question as regards complementary alternatives to antibiotics. However, the provision of alternative therapies, or integrated healthcare to use the term of this Question, is a matter that many practitioners have been considering.
Earl Howe: My Lords, what is the Government's policy on the question as to whether there should be statutory self-regulating bodies to oversee the professions which specialise in complementary therapy?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned, there are statutory regulations for a certain number of therapies. The question of trying to identify the precise regulation needed for others is under consideration. The noble Earl may be interested to know that a recent report on this matter by the Department of Health indicated 143
882
registering or umbrella bodies covering 14 major complementary and alternative medical disciplines. To extend that number through individual statute would be a very extensive exercise indeed. The encouraging point was that most self-regulation did seem to be working; less encouraging was the indication that standards were somewhat diverse and public accountability patchy. It is a matter that we must continue to address.

Jobseekers Act: Benefit Sanctions
3.10 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the operation of sanctions under the Jobseekers Act.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government believe that unemployed people have both rights and responsibilities. We are offering a wide range of quality help to people to find work. But it is a long-standing principle that benefit sanctions are imposed if people unreasonably cause or prolong their own unemployment. We are evaluating the jobseeker's allowance, including people's experience and perception of benefit sanctions, and we shall keep all the benefit rules under active consideration as we develop our Welfare to Work plans.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. She referred to people unreasonably prolonging their own unemployment. Perhaps I may direct her attention to some cases in the NACAB report, Benefit and Work. People left jobs, for example, in a wine bar where a woman had been three times assaulted; driving a heavy goods vehicle which was unsafe; a man suffering from angina who left heavy work which was giving him heart attacks; and a pregnant woman leaving a job where she was regularly lifting heavy boxes. These examples carry disqualification from benefit up to 26 weeks. Does the Minister believe that those people were unreasonably prolonging their unemployment?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot comment on those individual cases. On the face of it, I should have thought that they were not unreasonably prolonging their unemployment. As the noble Earl is aware, there is a procedure for appeal involving an adjudicator. Those sound like cases where that procedure ought to have been used.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I certainly accept her strictures as to the tightening up of disciplinary procedures? There was widespread agreement that they possibly needed tightening. According to the report mentioned by the noble Earl, which I have read, in practice citizens advice bureaux and other voluntary organisations have plenty of evidence to suggest that benefit officials take a tough line and are unwilling, unless pressed by independent advisers, to apply the concessions allowed by the rules.

883
The report gives ample evidence and a number of examples. I am particularly concerned about the rules that cater for unemployed people with health problems or disabilities. Such people are allowed to place restrictions on their availability for work—for example, on the number of hours that they can work or the types of work that they are able to do. It does not matter that the effect of the restrictions is that a person is extremely unlikely to find a suitable job, provided that the restrictions are reasonable in the light of a person's physical or mental condition. Yet the report is full of examples of people who have been rejected although they fulfil the conditions. Will the noble Baroness give an assurance that the Government will take account in their review of the examples in the reports issued by the citizens advice bureaux and return with reasonable suggestions and proposals that would be more acceptable to people in those unfortunate circumstances?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. It is extremely important that the Government take seriously a report of this kind and examine the examples that it provides. The Government are undertaking an evaluation of JSA and of the sanctions regime established under the Act. A piece of research is being undertaken by the Centre for Research and Social Policy based at Loughborough University. The post-JSA element of that study is starting this autumn and the report should be published some time next summer.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government, when in Opposition, were never supportive of sanctions and penalties for people who were prolonging their own unemployment. Therefore we welcome the Government's present policy in this area. How many young people up to the age of 25 are now out of work? Secondly, do the Government have any plans for changing the way in which they count those people as unemployed?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baroness gives to the Government's policy in this area. However, her question on the numbers of unemployed young people is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I will write to the noble Baroness and give her the precise, up-to-date figure. It changes every day of the week and I do not have it before me.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern that jobcentres are not doing their job or are doing it in a heavy-handed fashion? What action will her department take to ensure that the inspectors monitor the work of those employed in jobcentres?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not in fact aware that jobcentres are not doing their job. They have an extremely important responsibility. To my knowledge, those who work in jobcentres carry out their difficult task to the best of their ability and with great commitment. It is always important to monitor and
884
evaluate the work of any government agency. The Government are doing so and take the matter very seriously. Where failures occur, we will immediately do our best to rectify them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in reply to my first supplementary question the Minister invoked the right of appeal. Is she aware that under the Jobseekers Act no benefit is paid pending an appeal? Does she agree with the view expressed by her noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham in the previous Parliament that that denial is fundamentally unjust?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am perfectly aware that until an adjudicator has examined the issues, no benefit is paid. However, the important point is that there should be no delay in adjudicators undertaking this work. Again, the Government are committed to ensuring that that will not happen.

Business
3.17 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on economic and monetary union. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement following the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. There is a mandatory limit of 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 28).—.(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. The Ceremony of Introduction
The Committee has agreed that there should be an examination into the possibility of making changes to the ceremony on the introduction of peers into the House. The Committee believes that the proper way of proceeding is for the Leader of the House to table a Motion for an Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen praying that Her Majesty place Her prerogative and interest at the disposal of the House for the purpose of considering alterations to the introduction ceremony. A debate on this Motion (and a vote, if desired) will give the House the opportunity to express its views.
The Committee was informed that it had been agreed through the usual channels that, on those Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when three introductions were scheduled to take place, the House would sit at 2.15 p.m. Meetings of the House at 2.15 p.m. for introductions are well precedented.
2. Implications For The Lords of The Commons Select Committee on Modernisation
The Committee took note of proposals made by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HC 190 & 191) and agreed to consider at the appropriate time whether it would be desirable to make any consequential changes to Lords procedure.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ceremony of Introduction
3.18 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to place her prerogative and interest so far as they may be concerned at the disposal of the House of Lords for the purpose of the consideration of alterations in the ceremony of introduction.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with a certain degree of anticipation that I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I feel a little unsure of what to expect from the List of Speakers in this debate but I do know one thing: that this House takes it traditions and procedures very seriously indeed. I am therefore prepared for nothing less than a full and thorough debate. I hope that this Motion will provide the House with an opportunity for all those interested to make their views known on this important, if arcane, subject.
I should like to begin with a few words about the Motion before the House today. It is not a Motion to change the procedure for the ceremony of introduction; it is a technical Motion asking Her Majesty to allow the consideration of changes. As the ceremony of introduction is principally a matter for the Sovereign and not for the House—a topic to which I shall return later—technically the House needs to agree the Motion and receive Her Majesty's reply before we can even begin to consider options for change. However, perhaps I should say that that does not preclude a full debate this afternoon.
I am sure that the House will expect me to give some indication of the changes I have in mind to propose in due course if this Motion is agreed and I shall not disappoint your Lordships in that. It is, however, my clear understanding, on advice, that our procedures cater for this: although the House cannot formally consider changes to the ceremony until Her Majesty has given her permission, that does not preclude individuals from expressing their opinions and exploring ideas today. Indeed, we could hardly debate whether an humble Address was needed without discussing the reasons why.
I should also add that I am aware that some might question—indeed some have questioned—the propriety of the procedure committee having produced the report that the House has just accepted in advance of the House's agreeing to my Motion today. It would have been possible for me to have just tabled this Motion after discussion with the usual channels, but I considered it important to obtain the blessing of the
886
procedure committee before even tabling today's Motion. That also had the advantage of enabling various background papers to be made available to the House. I hope that the House will agree that that was the most sensible and courteous way for us to proceed.
Perhaps I may make one further procedural point before coming to the substance of the Motion. If the Motion is agreed to and Her Majesty gives her consent, there are a number of procedures which could then be followed to take forward the will of the House. The procedure committee could, for example, consider the ceremony itself, or perhaps a special Select Committee could be appointed. No discussions have yet taken place within the usual channels on this question, but I hope that noble Lords who have views on how we might proceed if the Motion is accepted will make them known during the debate.
I should now like to look at the ceremony itself. In this context I should say at the outset that I am not in favour of the most radical change of all: doing away with the ceremony entirely and requiring life Peers to go through no greater formality than is now observed by the hereditary occupants of our Benches when they succeed to their seats—namely, taking the oath and signing the roll. I am not in favour of what I call that most radical option because I recognise that, for those Peers for whom their new title is an honour personally bestowed, the day on which they first sit in your Lordships' House is a great occasion, for the Peer, their family and friends. A ceremonial introduction is a part of that sense of occasion and is a moment of significance for the House. I accordingly believe that an appropriate ceremony should be retained.
I suggest, however, that the present ceremony is no longer entirely appropriate. Some of its components no longer carry any meaning in the House and make even less sense to the public. It is also too long. It seems to me that an appropriate ceremony should meet three aims: first, it should provide a proper and public introduction of a new Peer to the rest of the House; secondly, it should be dignified and in accordance with the traditions of the House; and, thirdly, it should be conducted in a manner which does not lead to boredom in the House and disdain for our procedures. I do not believe that the present ceremony meets those aims.
There can be no doubt that the ceremony does provide a public introduction for a new Peer and for that reason I am in favour of retaining a ceremonial that takes place in the Chamber of the House rather than behind some beautifully gilded but firmly closed doors.
In one sense one could argue that the ceremony is in accordance with the traditions of the House, since it has been largely unaltered since 1621; but I suggest that longevity is not an entirely convincing justification. All traditions begin somewhere and the present ceremony was imposed upon the House by James I. He regularly created new Peers without ceremony. Indeed, he created peerages at an unprecedented rate in return for the large sums of money that he could secure for a peerage.
It may be that the King had become embarrassed at his involvement under those circumstances in personal investitures such as his predecessors had for centuries

887
carried out. Whatever the reason, it was in the course of the year 1621 that the new ceremony was devised and imposed upon the House, perhaps as an assertion of authority by the new Earl Marshal appointed that year, whose successor, I am delighted to say, will speak later in the debate. The House had then not sat for six years and was not involved in the formulation of the new ceremonial. It was presented with a ceremony which was largely an amalgamation of the procedures which the Sovereign had carried out at investitures—which took place sometimes, but not always, in Parliament—together with the previous procedures of the Lords for receiving a Baron by Writ. Hence, in looking to preserve the best of our traditions, as I accept that we should, we must not lose sight of where they originated—in the particular circumstances of a particular Sovereign over 300 years ago.
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that this ceremonial is not strictly part of our procedures at all, nor were the procedures used before the arrival of the present ceremony in 1621. Strictly speaking, introduction ceremonies have never been part of the proceedings of this House.
Hence in saying that I agree with the need to keep in touch with tradition, I stress that we need always to be aware of what our traditions mean. Furthermore, there is another perspective on such matters, one looking to the future rather than to the past. The lifetime of this Parliament will extend into the 21st century and, however those in some parts of the House feel about it, change is in the air. I ask the whole House to consider carefully whether a ceremonial of this kind fits as it stands with the kind of efficient and businesslike working second Chamber that we aim for or indeed with the well known dictum of many, particularly on the other side of the House, that the House of Lords "works". It may work, but does it not sometimes also creak under the weight of unquestioned tradition and accumulated precedent? I also believe that the dignity of an occasion such as an introduction is bound to suffer if repeated at length and ad nauseam.
As far back as the 1960s, when options for reform of the ceremony were discussed, there was a feeling that the ceremony had become repetitive and that the House was becoming bored with it. The fact that the House is never full for introductions also indicates to me that Peers in general may not be particularly keen on this ceremony and that the wishes of the House as a whole should be considered—the wishes of those who do not come to see it as well as those who do. There are certain elements of the ceremony which may seem somewhat ridiculous to the general public and are indeed awkward for many of those who have to undergo it.
If I may set out my own personal stall for a moment, I believe that a public ceremony, in accordance with tradition but appropriate for the present, would include supporters, robes to give a sense of dignity, the reading of either the Patent or the Writ and the handshake with the Lord Chancellor to the acclamation of the whole House. I might add that Peers by descent receive a similar Writ which is not read, but I do not consider that
888
the placing of a new Peer and the accompanying doffing of somewhat difficult and ancient hats serves any modern purpose whatever.
Indeed, the placing could be argued to be divisive and out of accord with the spirit of the House that all Peers are equal. It also reflects a time in your Lordships' House, long since gone, when Peers were arranged geographically in the Chamber in ermined ranks according to their degrees of peerage. Only a few vestiges of that practice remain. Accordingly, I believe that the placing of Peers on introduction should now be omitted from the introduction ceremony.
The doffing of hats too seems to be somewhat unnecessary. Its purpose was, perhaps, to reveal a Peer's face. Yet, for most of the ceremony now, Peers are hatless—male Peers are hatless anyway—and wholly visible. On a purely practical note, the corner of the Chamber in which the new Peer is placed is not exactly in easy sight of everyone present. If I may digress for a moment, that is yet another area where the procedures for hereditary Peers have become less onerous than those established for Life Peers. In the 16th century, Garter regularly "placed" all new Peers, whether by succession or on creation. The hereditary Peers have long since escaped that particular tradition.
I understand that many years ago Garter used to receive a fee for the placing of Peers, whether by succession or on creation. In that respect, I am very grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for drawing my attention to a monograph on the introduction of Peers in the House of Lords written by Sir Anthony Wagner in 1967. As I am sure the House will know, the powers, duties, advantages and fees payable to Garter were set out in a tract of the late 14th century or early 15th century, which survives in a number of copies, entitled: Jura debita et largitates appertinentes de antiqua consuetudine Armorum Officialibus secundum morem et consuetudinem Angliae. Your Lordships may feel that that needs translation into a more modern language. In Norman French it reads: Ces sont les Droiz et largesces appartenant et d'aunciennete accoustumez aux Roys d'Armes selon l'usance du Angleterre.
Why did it change? I fear that I have to tell your Lordships that, yet again, money seems to have played a part. Again, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the monograph in question. It seems that when the new ceremony was devised, Garter, the Clerk of Parliaments and possibly other officers were accorded specific fees in connection with it on condition that they abandoned the fees that they had previously received on the first entry of Peers coming in by descent.
So there is nothing particularly moral or indeed particularly honourable about the fact that doffing of hats takes place on the introduction only of Life Peers. It would seem that in 1621 it was felt that repetition of the ceremony would clearly be so great after the number of Peers that James I had created that better and more proper arrangements for the payment of the Heralds were necessary; and so it took place.
Perhaps I may just make one other remark about that matter. It seems to me that, if the object of the introduction is that a new Peer should be introduced to

889
the House, so far as I personally am concerned, I frequently know the Life Peers who are coming in rather better than I know the new hereditary Peers coming in by succession. When I made that point to an hereditary Peer the other day and questioned why there was such a great difference, I am afraid that the only answer I received was "Well, of course, we all know them.". My Lords, we do not. If the object is recognition and presentation of the Peer to his or her peers in this House, it should apply either equally or not at all.
I have said much about tradition and the need for change but I have not yet said anything about the question of time. There can be no doubt that introduction ceremonies absorb the prime time of the House at the start of the day, when Peers are looking to get on with important business. The House has recently given careful consideration to a number of aspects of its procedures, with a view to improving time management. But this ancient ceremony has remained unscrutinised. That is another reason why I hope that the House will agree to this Motion today: so that those questions of timing can be examined. I am also conscious that our procedures allow Peers to take their seats only slowly, spread over a number of weeks after announcement. A number of those who have been summoned by Her Majesty to be "personally present" to give counsel "waiving all excuses" are still unable to do so because they are in a queue to take their seats. I assume that that is acceptable as an excuse that cannot be waived; if so, it seems to be a little extreme. I do not believe that the present lengthy wait is appropriate or in accordance with the dignity that a peerage confers.
Let me deal with one argument that I have heard; namely, that this is all a put-up job and a ploy by the incoming Labour Administration, so that it can flood the House with Labour Peers. The present composition of this House is that on these Benches there are approximately, even with all the newcomers, 148 or 149 Labour Peers. The composition on the other side is that there are now no fewer than 498 or maybe 499 Peers, life and hereditary, to take the Conservative Whip. Flood, my Lords? It would need a deluge—and all I am looking for is a trickle. But even leaving aside that kind of watery simile for a moment, it seems to me that a situation in which somebody is made a Peer and then has to queue up because of the details of the ceremonial is frankly absurd and we ought to examine it. While I accept the need for the House to spend some time on the introduction of each new Peer, I do not consider that the current delay before introduction is right or makes sense.
Therefore, I believe that the time has come for the ceremony to be considered. We need a dignified ceremony with real meaning, which combines the strength of tradition with the needs of a modern legislature. But all I seek today is the agreement of the House that the process of consideration should begin. Passing this Motion today will not commit the House to change—I wish that it would do so, but it does not—but merely provides the first of the formal mechanisms required. If the Motion is agreed, the House will have
890
ample and proper opportunities to give its views and accept or reject any change proposed in due course. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to place her prerogative and interest so far as they may be concerned at the disposal of the House of Lords for the purpose of the consideration of alterations in the ceremony of introduction.—(Lord Richard.)
3.37 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is my entire good fortune that by sheer happenstance I have this very day taken part as one of the supporters of a new Peer. That circumstance has enabled me to have experienced in the laboratory of reality the nature of the ceremony which I myself underwent only some six years ago.
One of the emotions that assailed me when I followed Garter and Black Rod in all their glory into your Lordships' House was the feeling that man is clearly not a rational beast. Your Lordships will perhaps be more aware than most of the justice of that observation. It seems that man still has a need for ceremony, just as he always has. Before any noble Baronesses in the House rise in protest, let me say that I use the word "man" in the sense of mankind.
I must observe also that even the most revolutionary promoters of man as a rational being recognised that underlying emotional need. One only needs witness what in all conscience one can only call the absurd rituals invented by the holders of the most extreme opinions of the first French Revolution, or, indeed, occasionally the Soviet regime at its most dreary and depressing, to realise that regimes which were supposed to be based entirely on the rationality of man saw that there was a gap which their rational opinions could not fill. I have to observe that, in general, self-consciously modern—dare I say "new"—regimes are at least as vulnerable to the temptation to invent new and modern ceremonies (as I am told the Scots found this week), as are anciens régimes of the most dyed in the wool kind.
Most ceremonials, unlike the ceremonials of the French Revolution, grow up through happenstance, through muddle and, as the Lord Privy Seal pointed out this afternoon, even through the idleness of kings. As he said, our own introduction ceremony is one such, since it in part originates from the reluctance of James I and VI to confront directly the consequences of his mass sale of peerages to fund his personal extravagances.
Some ceremonies have been refined or even re-invented in modern times, often to their and our advantage. I am told by those who know more of this than I that much of our admired present day ceremonial was invented by King Edward VII. We have certainly become better at it in the 20th century, as anyone who has read accounts of the coronation of George IV and Queen Victoria can testify.
But well performed or ill, rational or irrational, symbolically clear or muddled by the accretions of time, we have a need for ceremonial to mark occasions of significance. It is for that reason that the House is right to hold a ceremony of introduction for a new peerage;

891
indeed, I wholly agreed with the sentiments expressed by the Lord Privy Seal, at least in that respect. I underline the use of the word "peerage" as opposed to the use of the word "Peer". A peerage in the present House of Lords is the institution rather than the Peer himself or herself, whether life or hereditary. However, I would be insulting the House if I did not acknowledge that many noble Lords individually qualify, certainly in the public mind, as institutions in their own right.
To that extent I agree with the Lord Privy Seal. The question therefore is not whether we should have an introduction ceremony at all—it is clear from what the Lord Privy Seal said that we should—rather, it is whether the present ceremony is dignified or appropriate. The Lord Privy Seal feels that it is not. I know that that view is expressed both inside and outside your Lordships' House; I have even heard the adjective "Gilbertian" applied to some of our proceedings. It is because there are differing views and because those views are being expressed on both sides increasingly forcefully—perhaps as a result of the prevailing atmosphere of change to which the Lord Privy Seal referred—that we should be grateful to him for proposing the Motion we are now discussing.
I confess that I have a greater affection for ceremony than our almost aggressively casual age will allow, at least in our national life. I also enjoy, perhaps rather more than the Lord Privy Seal, the quirks that usage and forgotten symbolism insert into some of our national ceremonies. I note that affection for ceremonial is often a matter of fashion and, as anybody who has children will know, fashion is a pendulum which can swing unpredictably to and fro.
I note also that the present Government wish to abolish the hereditary peerage. It is the hereditary peerage whose existence justifies a large part of the ceremonial that affects not just this House of Parliament, but on occasion both Houses. A new utilitarian quango which would be the House that would emerge after phase one of the proposed government reforms would look even more ridiculous in socialists' eyes if it retained all of what they feel is the flummery of a hereditary peerage.
It is a little curious, therefore, that changing our existing ceremonies should assume such a high priority over changing our composition. In that context, I hope that the Government will not feel that I am being unduly impertinent if I make an entirely constructive suggestion. If the Government feel that the existing ceremony is absurd, then clearly they have an interest in preserving it in full in order to point out all the better, perhaps at the margins of their argument, that we are a ridiculous House and that that is a good example of our absurdity.
For both those reasons—one perhaps more serious than the other—I feel that the timing of this initiative is a little premature. It may be better to consider the ceremonial attaching to this House after the abolition of the hereditary peerage than before. Nevertheless, I am happy to recommend to the House that we should accept
892
the Motion. It gives us an opportunity to express our views, as the Lord Privy Seal pointed out, and, like him, I suspect that those views will be diverse. They will give any committee that emerges from our proceedings to consider the matter a suitably difficult task to perform in order to synthesise what it has heard and report back to the House as a whole in due course.
I am happy, if the House agrees, to leave the nature of the body which is to consider these matters to the usual channels. No doubt your Lordships will want to express views on the nature of the body concerned and I can undertake that the usual channels on this side of the House will listen carefully to the views expressed. Indeed, your Lordships may feel that a Select Committee rather than the Procedure Committee or a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee may be a suitable vehicle for such an inquiry. However, the usual channels will be wise to be guided by your Lordships' views.
There will be much temptation in the public prints tomorrow to poke fun at your Lordships' activities this afternoon. Nevertheless, this is a matter of importance to your Lordships' House, and, as the Lord Privy Seal said, to the public's view of this House. It is also a matter of importance to new Peers, their families and friends, for whom the day of introduction is a great day, often the culmination of a long and distinguished career.
In that context I say, with the greatest respect to the Lord Privy Seal, that I hope that any Select Committee—if that is the body that emerges to examine this question—will not worry too much about the length of the ceremony. There is a via media in all these matters. I am told that the average amount of time the present ceremony takes is around 12 minutes, and that perhaps is not such a long time during the daily proceedings of your Lordships' House—in normal times as opposed to the queue mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal during the course of his remarks this afternoon. It is a solemn and important occasion and certainly, sub specie aeternitatis, it seems to me that this is not something which need detain us too much, so long as we do not lengthen the ceremony.
With your Lordships' permission I should like to make just one or two further points. I want to refer to the 2.15 p.m. start and our practice since we reassembled after the summer to introduce three, and I believe on one occasion four, Peers on the same day.
The Lord Privy Seal: My Lords, three Peers and a bishop.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for correcting me; three Peers and a bishop. I thought a bishop was also a Peer but I may be wrong about that. In view of the queue that has built up, thanks to the extraordinarily unusual circumstances now obtaining in your Lordships' House—there are an unusual number of new creations awaiting introduction—that practice is clearly justified. However, I hope that when we return to what will perhaps be more normal conditions we shall be able to return to our previous practice. I understand that that is the Lord

893
Privy Seal's intention, and I welcome it. Equally, I hope that the House will reject the idea of a production line Friday. That would be a way of cheapening the ceremony as far as concerns the introduced Peer and, I suspect also, cheapening the dignity of your Lordships' House.
With the greatest respect to the Lord Privy Seal, I do not altogether believe that the very large number of Peers now being introduced has a great deal to do with the shortage of Labour Peers. Perhaps we are conflating two arguments. I hope the Lord Privy Seal remembers that I was one of those who greatly sympathised with his dilemma and indeed admired the extraordinary work rate and effectiveness of the Labour Peers in Opposition. He also knows that I strongly felt that he always had a powerful case for increasing the number of Peers at his back, perhaps at the expense of the number of Tory Peers that were introduced. The Lord Privy Seal will remember conversations that he and I had in private on that subject. I hope he will forgive me for referring to it but I am stung into doing so by his remarks earlier this afternoon.
I have given, perhaps rather elliptically, some of my personal views on this subject, but this afternoon's debate is, above all, an opportunity for your Lordships to express your opinions. It would be wise for both Front Benches to listen to what your Lordships have to say, to see whether clear themes emerge from the debate, to refer the matter to a body which might be set up with the agreement of the usual channels and then for the matter to be brought in the form of a Motion to your Lordships' House so that your Lordships can agree or disagree with what the usual channels recommend. In that context, I greatly look forward to hearing what is said in your Lordships' House this afternoon. Certainly, from the list of speakers, it will be an interesting and informative debate.
3.53 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Motion seeks to permit further discussion of the matter. It seems to me that the only reason for rejecting the Motion would be if there were nothing to discuss and no change was in contemplation. But even if the ceremony had been unchanging over the centuries, it could change now, coming up to a new century. However, according to the paper which the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, was so good as to draw to your Lordships' attention in the Procedure Committee and which I found so interesting, the ceremony has changed. The Leader of the House mentioned changes that have occurred. I could not help noticing that there was a custom, no longer applied, of paying a fee to Garter on one's way in.
I read in that paper, too, that a number of peerages have been created where no ceremony was involved. In other words, the ceremony has evolved and could, in my view, evolve further. I was struck as well—I say this perhaps against myself—in noting from the paper that there was a time when a Barony—a mere Barony—was not regarded as an honour, not being of such high status as other forms of peerage.
894
In the late years of this century there has been a change in how the peerage is regarded. Increasingly, it is coming to be regarded as a job; it is a task of work; a job to be done. I regard myself as very honoured in being in your Lordships' House but particularly honoured in being trusted with what I regard as a most important job of work. I accept that we women are, of course, something of a modern innovation, so perhaps my words are themselves untraditional. I admit that I did not have any words of criticism for the ceremony when I was introduced six years ago. I was too baffled to move on to any criticism. I am glad to note now, having taken part in ceremonies of introduction in support of colleagues, that there is rather more explanation as to what is happening during the ceremony. That is an entirely good thing.
The Leader of the House referred to the danger of public disdain for our procedures. That is what is mostly in my mind. Like the two noble Lords who have spoken, I believe that it is essential to preserve our dignity in whatever form of ceremony of introduction we end up with. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said that the ceremony had been referred to as Gilbertian. The comment that that is no one's fault but Gilbert's has an impeccable logic to it. Nevertheless, it is something we should have in our minds. We should seek to maintain dignity, or perhaps achieve a little more dignity than we are achieving at present and achieve an appropriate character for introductions to a part of the legislature in a modern legislative body.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I believe that it is to some extent repetition that is in danger of undermining those two attributes. Like him, I agree that a production line Friday would be a bad idea. Inevitably, those are personal views. What mattered to me was coming in and taking the oath. The Letters Patent and the Writ were a necessary basis for that. Assuming that the robes are a mark of status, which is how they are regarded in the House and by those who look at us from outside—not that they are to indicate equality, as is the case with robing in other walks of life—I have to say that I rather dislike them. To those noble Lords who comment on doffing hats, I would say that it is far harder to keep a hat on one's head when bowing low, as we women Peers have to do, than it is to take it off.
However, those points are trivialities. What is most important is that there is a job to be done and, as has been observed, a Writ of Summons to be answered. The point made by the Leader of the House about delay in introducing those who have been appointed to take part in your Lordships' proceedings is a most important one. In a modern democracy, seeking to retain the best and improving the rest of the ceremonial is most important. I believe that the ceremony is at least worth full debate. There will be many different views as to possible changes. But, as I say, the only basis for refusing to agree to the Motion is if there is no argument at all for some change.
My views may be at one end of the spectrum. I have perhaps expressed them deliberately in a rather extreme fashion. However, there is a whole spectrum of views which deserves thorough discussion. I would urge your Lordships to support the Motion.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in view of the number of your Lordships who wish to participate in this debate, I shall be very brief. I am relieved to hear that the Lord Privy Seal is not suggesting that Her Majesty should be asked to place her prerogative and interest at the disposal of this House for the abolition of the ceremony of introduction. It is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, a very great honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House and to be introduced for the first time.
I agree with what he said about the importance of ceremonies. I can think of three ceremonies in my life which made a deep impression on me. The first was in 1946 when two of our soldiers who had defected to the enemy came back to join the regiment, claiming that they had been fighting behind the lines for us. They were drummed out of the regiment. It was a very moving ceremony and it made a great mark on everyone who witnessed it. The second was when I was brought to the other place as the Speaker Elect, Mr. Weatherill, and went away as Mr. Speaker. Within a year they had forgotten my name completely. Mr. Ian Mikardo once introduced me to his constituents as Sir Jasper More. The third occasion was on 15th July 1995 when I was introduced into your Lordships' House.
I cannot speak for the Cross Benchers and neither would I presume to do so. Nevertheless, when we heard just before the Summer Recess that this matter was likely to come before your Lordships' House, we did have a discussion about it at our Thursday meeting. That was before I had read a most interesting paper on the origins of the introduction of Peers by Sir Anthony Wagner and Mr. J.C. Sainty, who later became the Clerk of the Parliaments. I know that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, will be drawing attention to that and I shall not trespass on it this afternoon.
I believe that there is perhaps a good case for leaving well alone, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has already said, because of the 50 new Peers who have recently, or who are about to join us. They will not be affected by the changes. Since the Lord Privy Seal has said that he is thinking of a "dribble" of new Peers into your Lordships' House rather than a flood, I believe that the matter could well be left until we come to the major matter—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I put it more elegantly than a "dribble". I said a "trickle".
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is much the same thing so let us call it a trickle then. I should have thought that the matter could have been left to when we come to discuss the major changes which, I understand, we are likely to have before us in the days to come.
If there is a case for speeding up the introduction, perhaps I may make three very modest suggestions. The first is that the Letters Patent and the Writ should be combined in order to save a small amount of time. Unlike the Lord Privy Seal, I am in favour of the ceremony of placing. That should be done from these Benches—actually from this Bench—rather than from
896
the usual third Bench, because, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, if one is on the Conservative Benches one has to crick one's neck to recognise them anyway. From this Bench it would be a simple matter. I am in favour of keeping the ceremony of doffing hats, but once rather than three times. On my estimate that would save about five minutes of the ceremony.
I would also be in favour of continuing the 2.15 p.m. start. As the noble Viscount Lord Cranborne has said, that would encourage fuller attendance in the Chamber. As I have said, the ceremony of introduction is a very significant one for Peers of first creation and for their families as well.
I end on a purely personal note. Your Lordships may not be aware that my Peerage is somewhat different from others, in that it arises from a Motion on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. All Motions there are debatable and this Motion was certainly debated because there are very few occasions where Members of the other place can debate the finances of the Royal Family. I have a dozen charming letters saying in effect, "No hard feelings, mate. We've got to seize our opportunities 'ere". And they did. So my Peerage came a little later than others who were created at that time.
In my modesty I thought that someone might write to me and suggest that it would be a good idea if I came and joined your Lordships but nothing happened. Eventually, my wife prodded me in to coming to see the Clerk of the Parliaments, who asked me if my Letters Patent had been published in the London Gazette. Most of us do not read the London Gazette. I just got in, I believe, the day before the Summer Recess. I remember saying then to the Clerk of the Parliaments, going back to my days in the Army, "Is it like being in the Army?" He said, "What do you mean by that?" I said, as some noble Lords may remember, "The Sergeant Major would say, 'Come on, get fell in. Them what's keen got fell in previous'". I believe that "them what's keen" were certainly "previous".
I end by saying that I hope that this ceremony will not be greatly changed other than with those modest suggestions that I have made. I would be very much in favour of the matter being considered by a Select Committee and then perhaps through the usual channels.

European Monetary Union
4.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on European Monetary Union.
"Since the end of the Second World War Britain has faced no question more important and more contentious than that of our relationship with Europe.
"Divisions within governments of both parties, and hence indecision, have made British policy towards Europe, over many years, inconsistent and unclear.

897
"The economic consequences of these weaknesses have been a loss of international initiative and influence, recurrent instability and continuing questioning of our long-term economic direction.
"To break with this legacy, and to establish clear national purpose, which has eluded us for decades, economic leadership is essential, and Britain must now make the difficult decisions on Europe, however hard.
"The decision on a single currency is probably the most important this country is likely to face in our generation. Yet until now, there has been no detailed examination by government of the practical economic issues of EMU. There has been no proper preparation for a decision, because no previous government could agree on whether they supported it in principle, nor whether there was an overriding constitutional objection on grounds of sovereignty or not; nor whether, even if a single currency worked and worked well, the government would wish to be part of it. Forms of words like "keeping the option open"—while no preparations were ever made to render the option practicable—have similarly served as a pretext for postponing the hard choices.
"Now is the time to make these hard choices and set a long-term direction for our economic future in Europe.
"So I will deal, in turn, with the question of principle, the constitutional implications of EMU, and the economic tests that have to be met. In each area, I will set down the Government's policy.
"When we came into Government I asked the Treasury to carry out an assessment of the economic tests that have to be met. Accompanying my Statement is this comprehensive and detailed Treasury assessment which I am publishing today, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
"I start with the question of principle. First, the potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious: in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. Of course, I stress it must be soundly based. It must succeed. But if it works economically, it is, in our view, worth doing.
"So in principle, a successful single currency within a single European market would be of benefit to Europe and to Britain.
"Secondly, it must be clearly recognised that to share a common monetary policy with other states does represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty.
"There are those who argue that this should be a constitutional bar to British participation in a single currency, regardless of the economic benefits it could bring to the people of this country.
"In other words, they would rule out a single currency in principle, even if it were in the best economic interests of the country.
"That is an understandable objection and one argued from principle. But in our view it is wrong. If
898
a single currency would be good for British jobs, business and future prosperity, it is right, in principle, to join.
"The constitutional issue is a factor in the decision, but it is not an over-riding one; rather it signifies that in order for monetary union to be right for Britain the economic benefit should be clear and unambiguous.
"So I conclude on this question of principle: if, in the end, a single currency is successful, and the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the Government believe Britain should be part of it.
"There is a third issue of principle—the consent of the British people. Because of the magnitude of the decision, we believe—again, as a matter of principle—that whenever the decision to enter is taken by government, it should be put to a referendum of the British people. So whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree.
"So we conclude that the determining factor as to whether Britain joins a single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for doing so is clear and unambiguous.
"I now turn to the Treasury's detailed assessment of the five economic tests that define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made. These are, first, whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency; secondly, whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; thirdly, the effect on investment; fourthly, the impact on our financial services industry; and fifthly, whether it is good for employment.
"Of these, the first and most critical is convergence: can we be confident that the UK business cycle has converged with that of other European countries so that the British economy can have stability and prosperity with a common European monetary policy? That convergence must be capable of being sustained and likely to be sustained—in other words, we must demonstrate a settled period of convergence.
"Currently Britain's business cycle is out of line with our European partners. Interest rates here are 7 per cent. This is the level the Bank of England has set in order to achieve our inflation target. But in Germany and France interest rates are close to 3 per cent. Across the continent, because business cycles are more coincident, short-term interest rates have been converging for some time.
"This divergence of economic cycles is, in part, a reflection of historic structural differences between the UK and other European economies, in particular the pattern of our trade and North Sea oil. These differences are becoming less distinct as trade with the rest of Europe grows and the single market deepens.
"But divergence is also a legacy of Britain's past susceptibility to boom and bust: the damaging boom of the late 1980s; the severe recession of the early

899
1990s; and the previous government's failure to raise interest rates early enough in the current economic cycle.
"Since coming into office, the Government have introduced long-term measures to ensure that we are capable of maintaining stability by giving operational responsibility for interest rates to the Bank of England and by implementing our deficit reduction plan for public borrowing.
"We will need a period of stability with continuing toughness on inflation and public borrowing. The Treasury's assessment is that, at present, the UK's economic cycle is not convergent with our European partners and that this divergence could continue for some time. To demonstrate sustainable convergence will take a period of years.
"I turn now to flexibility. To be successful in a monetary union, countries will need even more flexibility to adjust to change and to unexpected economic events once the ability of countries to vary their interest rates and exchange rates has gone and the euro and a single European interest rate are in place. Flexibility may be particularly important for the UK if there is any risk that our business cycle has not fully converged with those of the other EMU members.
"The Treasury assessment of the second test is that, in Britain, persistent long-term unemployment and lack of skills—and in some areas lack of competition—point to the need for more flexibility to adapt to change and to meet the new challenges of adjustment. The Government have begun to implement a programme for investing in education and training, helping people from welfare into work and improving the workings of our markets.
"Of course, other European countries need to tackle unemployment and inflexibility to make sure Europe as a whole is able to withstand any shocks that arise. The Government will continue to argue that employability, flexibility and stronger competition policies must be a top priority so that monetary union can be successful.
"The third test is investment: whether joining EMU would create better conditions for businesses to make long-term decisions to invest in Britain. The Treasury assessment is that, above all, business needs long-term economic stability and a well-functioning European single market. It concludes that membership of a successful single currency would help us to create the conditions for higher and more productive investment in Britain.
"But the worst case for investment would be for Britain to enter EMU without proper preparations and without sufficient convergence and with all the uncertainty that would entail.
"The fourth test asks what impact membership of the single currency would have on our financial services industry. EMU will affect that industry more profoundly and more immediately than any other sectors of the economy.
900
"The Treasury's assessment is that we can now be confident that the industry has the potential to thrive whether the UK is in or out of EMU, so long as it is properly prepared. But the benefits of new opportunities from a single currency could, however, be easier to tap from within the euro zone. This could help the City of London to strengthen its position as the leading financial centre in Europe.
"The fifth test relates to employment. For millions of people, the most practical question is whether membership of a successful single currency would be good for prosperity and jobs. The Treasury assessment is that our employment-creating measures, and welfare state reform, must accompany any move to a single currency. Ultimately, we conclude that whether a single currency is good for jobs in practice comes back to sustainable convergence. A successful single currency would provide far greater trade and business in Europe.
"The Treasury assessment is that in vital areas the economy is not yet ready for entry and that much remains to be done. The previous policy of keeping options open, without actively making preparations, has left parts of the economy unprepared.
"Our overall assessment is that Britain needs both a period for preparation and a settled period of sustainable convergence. Both require stability.
"Applying these five economic tests leads the Government to the following clear conclusions. British membership of a single currency in 1999 could not meet the tests and therefore is not in the country's economic interests. There is no proper convergence between the British and the other European economies now. To try to join now would be to accept a monetary policy which would suit other European economies but not our own. We will therefore be notifying our European partners, in accordance with the Maastricht Treaty, that we will not seek membership of the single currency on 1st January 1999.
"The issue then arises as to the period after 1st January 1999. We could simply leave the options open, as before, but with no clear direction either way for the rest of the Parliament. That would be politically easy but wrong.
"There would be instability, perpetual speculation about 'in or out', 'sooner or later', which would cause difficulties in the financial markets and for business and industry.
"It would make it harder to prepare for the possibility of a single currency because every step in preparation, every time the issue was discussed, would feed fresh bouts of speculation.
"It must be in the country's interest to have a stable framework within which to plan; and we are fortified in this because, on the economic tests we have set out, the practical difficulties of joining a single currency in this Parliament all point to the same conclusion.
"There is no need, legally, formally or politically, to renounce our option to join for the period between 1st January 1999 and the end of the Parliament, nor

901
would it be sensible to do so. There is no requirement under the treaty for this. What is more, no government can ever predict every set of economic circumstances that might arise.
"What we can and should do is to state a clear view about the practicability of joining monetary union during this period. Applying our economic tests, two things are clear. There is no realistic prospect of our having demonstrated, before the end of this Parliament, that we have achieved convergence which is sustainable and settled rather than transitory; and the Government have only just begun to put in place the necessary preparations which would allow us to do so. Other countries have for some years been making detailed preparations for a single currency. For all the reasons given, we have not. Therefore, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision during this Parliament to join is not realistic. It is also therefore sensible for business and the country to plan on the basis that, in this Parliament, we do not propose to enter a single currency.
"There are those who urge us to seek consent in principle in a referendum now or soon, but with a view to entering some time later. Any serious gap between the referendum and the actual entry date would undermine the conclusions of the referendum.
"Because the essential decision is economic, it can be taken only at a time when government and then the people can judge that sustainable convergence has been established.
"So, in our view the interval between the decision to join and our joining must not be unduly protracted.
"I have said that if a single currency works and is successful Britain should join it. We should therefore begin now to prepare ourselves so that should we meet the economic tests we can make a decision to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament. At present, with no preparation it is not a practical option. We must put ourselves in the position for Britain to exercise genuine choice.
"The questions of preparation are immense—practical questions for business, as well as for government. Euro notes and coins will, for example, be circulating across Europe from 1st January 2002. Some companies like Marks and Spencer have already decided to prepare to accept euros in Britain. Others will want advice on what is best for them.
"Because both the Government and business must prepare intensively during the next years, we will commence work on the detailed transition arrangements for the possible introduction of the euro in Britain, including the introduction of notes and coins should we wish to enter; step-up the work on what business should do now to prepare for the introduction of the euro in 1999, whether we are in or out; and work with business on what government must do to prepare for EMU should we decide to join it in the next Parliament.
902
"To help with essential preparations, I have invited the Governor of the Bank of England and Sir Colin Marshall, the President of the CBI, to join me and the President of the Board of Trade in leading a standing committee on preparations for EMU. I am pleased to say that they have agreed. I am also inviting the President of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to join us. I can also announce that from January a series of regional and sectoral conferences on preparations for monetary union will be held.
"Also, the Prime Minister has today decided to extend Lord Simon's Treasury responsibilities to include European business preparations in the Government, covering the long-term planning of the new standing committee.
"In addition to these practical preparations, there are reforms we can take which are both right in themselves in the national economic interest and which will help us to meet the five economic tests.
"We will promote greater flexibility in the UK economy and in Europe through our Getting Europe to Work initiative.
"We will be introducing new competition legislation, which draws on the best of European and wider international policy and practice as well as continuing to negotiate to secure the best interests of our financial sector and for opening up the single market in financial services.
"We will set as one of the key objectives of our EU presidency completion of the European single market.
"In my Mansion House speech I said that if we succeed in strengthening the ability of the British economy to sustain growth with low inflation, and if international conditions permit, I would hope to lower the inflation target. So we will monitor our inflation target and do so in the light of the European Central Bank; and we will ensure that our fiscal rules and our deficit reduction plan continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability pact, thus underlining our commitment to avoid an excessive deficit under Article 104c of the Treaty and supporting greater coordination in ECOFIN.
"In Britain's interests we need to keep inflation low and public borrowing firmly under control.
"The single currency will affect Britain, in or out of it. It is in the British national interest for it to work. Vital decisions will be made during our EU presidency in the first half of next year. We will use our position constructively and supportively and we will play a full part in ensuring its launch is successful—something that is in Britain's interests as well as Europe's.
"To sum up, we believe that in principle British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and to Europe. The key factor is whether the economic benefits of joining for business and industry are clear and unambiguous. If they are, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU. Applying the economic tests, it is not in this country's interest to join in the first wave of EMU starting on 1st January 1999 and, barring some

903
fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision this Parliament to join is not realistic; but in order to give ourselves a genuine choice in the future it is essential that the Government and business prepare intensively during this Parliament, so that Britain will be in a position to join a single currency, should we wish to, early in the next Parliament.
"On Europe, Madam Speaker, the time of indecision is over. The period for practical preparation has begun. Today we begin to build a new consensus—modern and outward looking—for a country that throughout its history has looked outward to the world.
"We are the first British Government to declare for the principle of monetary union; the first to state that there is no overriding constitutional bar to membership; the first to make clear and unambiguous economic benefit to the country the decisive test; and the first to offer their strong and constructive support to our European partners to create more employment and more prosperity.
"The policy I have outlined will bring stability to business, direction to our economy and long-term purpose to our country. It is the right policy for Britain in Europe. More important, it is the right policy for the future of Britain, and I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the other place. Certainly this Statement was needed to clear up the confusion over the Government's policy in relation to the single currency over the past few weeks. Contrary to an assurance given to me on Wednesday when I raised this issue, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has not been asked to clarify the events of the past few weeks or to give any explanation of the confusion at the centre of government.
What is one to deduce from the article in the Financial Times of 26th September by Robert Peston? Does one conclude that it is without foundation? If so, who is the Minister quoted in that article? Indeed, in the article in The Times on 18th October it was quite clear that a Minister was quoted because another of the spin doctors had told him that the Minister quoted in Robert Peston's article was not in the decision-making loop. I believe that is a lovely phrase. If he was not in the decision-making loop they must know who he is. Can noble Lords be informed who was the Minister who made that statement to Robert Peston?
But if Robert Peston's article in the FT of 26th September was false, why did it take three weeks before the Government decided to try to clarify the position? Over those three weeks they watched an entirely false market in both equities and sterling being created in the City. They knew why that was happening and they did nothing to try to rectify it.
904
Further, the Statement gives no explanation as to why on the afternoon before Robert Peston's article appeared the value of sterling began to decline markedly. Equally mysteriously, on the 17th October, the day before the Chancellor gave the interview to The Times, the value of sterling began to rise from the start of trading to the end of it. Perhaps the spin doctors were at work. It is not just that we ought to be told; it is absolutely incumbent on the Government that they tell us what is going on.
I believe that it took the noble Lord about 19 minutes to repeat the Statement. It contained a good deal of lovely language. If that flowery language was stripped away it could perhaps be best summed up by the rather briefer words that I have used; namely, that the matter should be judged on whether or not it is good for Britain. That seems to me a far quicker explanation without all the flowery language. If that is, indeed, what the Government now believe—in other words, they agree with the previous government's policy—I welcome that. I am not entirely sure that I should not read the flowery language more carefully, and I shall come to some of it.
We were assured by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who was brought in to help the Treasury team last week, that when it came to the referendum question on the single currency there would be a triple lock. I read carefully, and listened carefully, to the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I presume that the triple lock will be for this Parliament; the next Parliament; for any Parliament; it will not be just for this Parliament. I can assure the noble Lord that my party's pledge of a referendum, which was mocked by the Labour Party when we made it, and then, of course, like so much else in the past two years, adopted, is for whenever a Conservative government decide to go in. Is the lock just for this Parliament or will it feature in the party opposite's manifesto at the next election'? That is a question to which we should like to know the answer.
On the issue of the period of convergence and the convergence of the economic cycles, which is one of the important tests, I wonder how long the settled period is. One part of the document talks about developing sustainable convergence and that that will take a period of years. The single currency will not be up and running among those who join in 1999 until 2002. How many years after 2002? That is important. If the Government want to have stability, they should explain what they mean by that sustainable convergence.
My worry, although the phrase "a period of years" reduces it, is that as we are out of "sync", which I gather is the expression in the trade cycle, we shall find, in two, three or four years' time, as we go into a labour recession, that our statistics meet those of a European revival. Therefore, for a week or two, a month or two, or whatever, there will be convergence, but a different convergence. It is the convergence of two buses passing for a brief moment whose journeys are in opposite directions. I hope that the Government mean "a period of years". I want to hear the Minister underline the fact that it will not just be convergence coming about for a

905
few moments, so to speak, because one is going down and the other is going up, but that it will be genuine convergence.
I brought the message of flexible markets to you Lordships many times. Flexible markets in this country have not been helped by the Government signing up to the social chapter. It is not this country that has the problem with flexible markets; it is the problem of our friends in Europe.
The employment test is clearly a bigger problem for our friends in Europe than it is for us. If, when they receive it, noble Lords look at UK membership of the single currency—the assessment document produced by the Treasury—Chart 2.2 shows clearly what we all know. Thanks to the policies of the previous government, this country's unemployment rate has been declining while the unemployment rate of our principal competitors in Europe has been increasing. They have something to learn from what we have been doing. My concern is that in our determination to get alongside them we shall damage the very unemployment reduction that we have all welcomed. I notice that the Government are now welcoming it also.
As to the conclusions on EMU, I notice and welcome the fact that the Government have decided to take advantage of my right honourable friend John Major's opt-out. I find it ironic, given the derision encountered by my right honourable friend when he came back with the opt-out, that the Government are today saying to this House that they are going to use the very opt-out upon which they poured such contempt.
The Statement deals with the question of the rest of the Parliament, and says that simply leaving the options open would not be the right thing to do. I can see that. Then the Government say that,
"in this Parliament, we do not propose to enter a single currency."
So far, so good, but later the Statement says that,
"barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision this Parliament to join is not realistic".
That caveat seems a little odd. I wonder what it adds up to.
I notice and welcome the fact that the Government are making preparations for the euro. So were we. Indeed my right honourable friend Mr Kenneth Clarke was constantly at meetings doing just that with our European friends. I welcome in particular the expansion in the Treasury of the remit of the noble Lord, Lord Simon. I wonder whether I shall have the pleasure of crossing swords with him across the House when he comes to answer for the Treasury, so relieving the poor overworked Deputy Chief Whip of answering for the Treasury and just about every other department sometimes, it seems to me.
I seriously hope—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Simon, is capable of answering for himself and crossing swords with me—that the noble Lord will answer for his Treasury responsibilities and, indeed, for the whole of the Treasury, in particular on the European question. I have to say that, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce
906
of Donington, we have two or three little tests in the next week or two which will give the noble Lord, Lord Simon, the opportunity to answer for the Government.
I notice, on the question of preparations, that there is nothing about the ERM. Noble Lords will recall that it is laid down in the treaty that a country has to be in the ERM for at least two years prior to entry into the single currency. Does that figure as part of the Government's plans for the future? When might they be doing that? Will that be in this Parliament? Or is it something else that they will leave? Will they leave it to the other side of a referendum?
The peroration for this—I am sure that the pro-Europeans would think it if they listened merely to the peroration—sounded like a clear decision to enter. Yet elsewhere the Statement says that it will be a period of years before a decision can be made. That seems to reflect a fair degree of conflict inside the Government. It is a conflict reflected in the press briefings I mentioned earlier. It sounded a bit like Saint Augustine's, make me chaste, Oh Lord, but not yet. I believe that fear of a referendum and fear of the reaction of the Murdoch press has had a great deal to do with the Statement we have heard today.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we naturally welcome the constructive, pro-European framework into which the Statement is set. That is a vast advance on the unrealistic scepticism, mingled with sour with which the previous government approached the subject. At the same time, there is a major tactical misjudgment as to how to approach this most vital, and, on the experience of successive governments, dangerous subject.
The Government would have kept better command of events and more fortified their position had they decided to go for an earlier decision. I accept that there are technical reasons associated with the different phases of the UK and Continental economies as to why entry in 1999 is difficult, although I believe that statesmanship is often most marked when it rises above technical reasons. However, even if entry is to be delayed, an earlier referendum—they are committed to a referendum—would have been desirable.
I am confident that with a firm lead from the Government, and the economic and political line-up which would have followed, a referendum at a fairly early date could have led to a successful conclusion in favour of entry into a single currency. I speak on the issue with a recollection as president of the Keep Britain in Europe campaign at the time of the 1975 referendum. Six months before that referendum we were in a far more adverse position. I am amazed to see, on the latest figures, that 37 per cent. still pronounce themselves positively in favour of going in. That is in the face of a complete dearth of any propaganda from the previous government or, to be honest, from almost anyone else. Therefore, I believe that 37 per cent., as a starting point, is a remarkably favourable base. As noble Lords will recollect, the 1975 referendum, starting from a more unfavourable point in the autumn of 1974, resulted in a two-to-one majority on quite a high turnout.

907
I believe that the period of "wait and see" is bound to be somewhat deleterious to our influence in Europe, although not necessarily permanently or disastrously so. Waiting to see if an action is successful before one decides whether to join is not traditionally the most noble or glorious course. Very few Victoria Crosses have been won that way. Nevertheless, I welcome, first, the new constructive tone; secondly, the fact that the constitutional and/or sovereignty arguments have been so decisively set aside; thirdly, the fact that action is to be taken to explain and advocate the reasons for going in; and fourthly, as I understand it, the fact that the detailed preparations will welcome, more or less, the use of the euro as a parallel currency in this country. I say in passing that I am extremely glad that the responsibilities of the noble Lord, Lord Simon, have been extended to include that aspect of the matter. From these Benches, we greatly welcome that and believe that the noble Lord has very much to contribute. Fifthly, I applaud the positive desire to get us into "sync", the current phrase, at the earliest possible moment.
The Statement is far from eradicating the chronic British national disease of always being late which has afflicted successive governments since 1950. But at least we now avoid complaining about what others are doing or indulging in complacent and mis-placed scepticism and an attachment to the shadow of sovereignty while allowing its substance to be gobbled up by the global economy which has played a major part in reducing the Conservative Party to the state in which it finds itself today. The European issue has been a great destroyer of governments and Prime Ministers. I hope that that lesson has at least been partially learned.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for different reasons, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to this important Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, used the first three minutes of the time available to him complaining that I took 20 minutes to discuss the issues but refusing to consider the issues at all. He was concerned only with the surface politics of the past three weeks. I am sorry to say that he does not appear to have read or listened to what was said from this Dispatch Box on that occasion. I do not wish to spend much time on the matter but surely it would be right for the Official Opposition to pay attention to what the Chancellor said rather than to major, as the noble Lord did, on the press speculation which surrounded those statements.
For our part, the position has been entirely clear and has not changed. In other words, we said at the very beginning that we saw formidable obstacles to joining in January 1999. We set the Treasury the task of examining the economic criteria—I stress that the economic criteria are far more important in the long run than the largely fiscal criteria laid down at Maastricht—saying that when that review had been completed we would come back to Parliament and state our position. That is exactly what we have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, finds agreement with us in that we both think that the criterion for membership or otherwise should be what is good for Britain. But that is an extremely minimal degree of
908
agreement, is it not? It is the absolute lowest common denominator of agreement. Of course, we all think that it should be good for Britain but what we think is good for Britain and why we think it is good for Britain is subject to a great deal of disagreement. On this side of the House we have set out our stand in this Statement. We have ruled out those options which are not tenable and have set our path for the future with all the clarity and responsibility which have been called for.
In more than 10 minutes, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, did not make a single reference to his own party's policy reaction to the Statement: he was concerned largely with trivia rather than with the major thrust of the Statement or government policy. The noble Lord asked me whether the triple lock will continue; whether it is still the combination of the view of the Cabinet, Parliament and the people in a referendum. I believe that the Statement makes clear—and I can understand that in a long Statement, the noble Lord may have missed it—that that commitment to a triple lock continues as long as is necessary and if necessary into the next Parliament.
The noble Lord asked about the definition of a settled period of sustainable convergence. That is a very serious and important question, and he was right to raise the matter. We do not know in terms of numbers of months what is the definition of sustainable convergence. We cannot say in terms of a number of days what is a settled period. But the forward markets give us some idea of what it is likely to be. It is because we wish a settled period of sustainable convergence to be the primary criterion for us that we have been obliged to say that we do not see that we shall be entering or making the decision to enter within this Parliament.
As to the question which the noble Lord raised about the rules for the time between a decision to enter and the final adoption of a single currency, the rules for later entrants will be the same as the rules for original entrants.
The noble Lord chided us on first criticising and then using the Maastricht opt-out. I believe that he has a point there. It is true that the result that came back from the Maastricht Treaty negotiations has proved valuable. I think that that was recognised in both Houses of Parliament when those matters were debated.
The noble Lord asked about the meaning of the caveat of "wholly unexpected and unforeseen circumstances." I have made it clear that although we are determined to be proactive in making sure that our preparations are powerful and effective, no government—this Government or any other—can be certain under all circumstances that we can predict what the economic circumstances will be in the future. But if the noble Lord is claiming seriously that the Conservative government made real preparations for entry into the European Union, all I can say is that he certainly fooled me. Much more important, he certainly fooled the leaders of business in this country because there has been no significant element of conviction by the business community, as has been made clear by the CBI and many others, that the Conservative government at that time, even under Mr. Kenneth Clarke, expected

909
seriously that we should enter European monetary union and therefore expected British business to make realistic preparations. If that had been so we might have had something proposed by the last government along the lines of the standing committee which is now to be established and we might have had someone of the calibre of my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury taking responsibility for such matters in the Treasury. However, we did not. In all of this there was no proper response to the issue of policy which I believe this country expects to be debated within the next few years. On future occasions, I hope that the noble Lord will feel it possible to join in the debate rather more seriously than he did today.
I turn now to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. Of course I am grateful to him for what he said. I know that he recognises how serious we are and how important is the change in policy which has been announced. The noble Lord confirmed the importance of the Statement in that this is the first government to declare for the principle of monetary union, to declare that there is no overriding constitutional bar and to declare that it must be "clear and unambiguous" economic benefit which determines the final choice which will be made by the people of this country.
I was slightly surprised by the noble Lord's suggestion that it would be desirable to go for an early referendum, even if we were not proposing to act upon it until a later date. The noble Lord described our position as being a tactical misjudgment. However, if a referendum is to be a genuine consultation of the British people, I suggest to the noble Lord that it must be taken at a time when both the Cabinet and Parliament have satisfied themselves that these serious economic tests have been achieved, so that it is possible to put the position to the British people with a sufficient degree of confidence.
The noble Lord described the change from the position of "wait and see" of the previous government. I agree with him. I rather like the suggestion in today's press reports that we have moved from a position of "wait and see" to one of "prepare and join". It is for the judgment of the British people to determine whether or not that is the case. I very much hope that it will be.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, when repeating the Statement, the noble Lord referred to the importance of stability and coherence. He will no doubt agree that, to achieve those two objectives, control over internal interest rates will be needed. Therefore, having divested themselves of control over interest rates, does the noble Lord believe that the Government will reverse their policy in that respect? Alternatively, are they prepared to leave the settlement of such matters to those whom they do not control?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have not divested ourselves of control over interest rates. We have said that the short-term decisions on interest rates shall be the responsibility of the Bank of England, which
910
will in turn act in accordance with criteria having particular reference to inflation which will be set by government. That is not abandoning responsibility in any sense of the word.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, many of us will be most grateful to the Government for having made such a clear Statement this afternoon. One thing is absolutely clear; namely, that we have at least four years during which informed debate can take place, not only in this House and in another place but also throughout the country. Can my noble friend say whether the Government will use their best endeavours, not least by example, to prevent the arguments that will be forthcoming from becoming sloganised instead of being examined critically on the basis of the facts as they become available?
Further, can my noble friend say whether the Government are prepared to accept responsibility for making as many facts as possible, not slogans, available to the whole country—and, indeed, to this House and another place—so that we shall be able to arrive at rational decisions while respecting the views of others, but nonetheless be able to speak on the basis of our own convictions based upon the facts which are produced to us for our consideration?
In that connection, can my noble friend say, finally, whether the Government will do as their predecessors did in 1984 and make available to this House and another place a cost-benefit analysis of our developing relations, not only with Europe but also with the rest of the world? Speaking personally for a moment, I should say that the Government have my utmost goodwill. I hope that we shall not have sonorous platitudes from them that pass for statesmanship, but that we shall have statements of real intention and of real honesty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for his constructive contribution to the debate. Indeed, I would be the last person to say that there should be any inhibition in this House or anywhere else on informed debate. My noble friend was right to draw the attention of the House to the need to avoid sloganising. My noble friend asked whether we would publish a cost-benefit analysis of the issues that face us in preparing for membership of the European monetary union. The Treasury document referred to in the Statement, which my noble friend will not yet have had a chance to read, is very much a precursor to the kind of cost benefit analysis that he requests. It would not be a good idea for us to be publishing such cost-benefit analyses at regular, predetermined intervals. However, as information becomes available which is relevant to the debate, we shall of course make it available to the public and to Parliament.
While talking about informed debate, I must emphasise the fact that we are not simply embarking upon a period of four years, or whatever, of debate; we are embarking upon a period of preparation. Unless we use the time available to us for preparation for entry into EMU, the question which we put to Parliament and to the people in a referendum will be meaningless. There

911
is no point in putting forward a question to which the answer is, "Yes, we would like to do it, but we are not ready". It must be a period of active preparation rather than a period of theoretical debate, however well informed.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord said earlier that it was in Britain's national interest not only that we should enter successfully when we do—indeed, that is obvious—but also that it is in our national interest that the single currency system as a whole should work in the longer term. Can the noble Lord tell us what we are to do to contribute to that task, whether from a position of "out" or "pre-in" or "in" the system, given the fact that the whole system will remain extremely fragile for many years; that there is not much convergence throughout the whole of Europe let alone between Britain and the continental economies; that there is very little labour mobility; and that we remain extremely vulnerable to the major kind of shocks that nearly destroyed the old ERM and which could destroy us again, as threatened by Asia?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The Statement refers to our responsibilities in the first six months of the presidency next year and then subsequently for ensuring that EMU does work, even during the period when we are not members. Although we take part in the work of the European Monetary Institute at present, that will cease when its responsibilities are transferred to the European Central Bank. However, ECOFIN will carry on and we will still be a part of it. Discussions and decisions on the single market will continue and we shall remain part of that process. It will still be the case that trade barriers within Europe will have to be dismantled and we shall play a part in the decision making as regards that dismantling. In all of those areas we shall still play an active part, as we shall in the Council of Ministers, on decisions on trade between the member states of the European Union and the operation of the single currency. It is difficult to be more precise at the moment about the way it will work until we see how the UK presidency proceeds. However, I can give the noble Lord an assurance that we shall seek to be closely involved in these decisions and to make sure that nothing happens that will rule out our subsequent entry when the time is right.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, is there not a basic contradiction and inconsistency in the Government's position because despite the encouraging words, fundamentally there has been no commitment? Can the Government really expect industry to spend tens of millions of pounds—and in some cases hundreds of millions of pounds—on preparation for an event which according to the Government may never take place?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know what a commitment is if it is not the commitment that has been declared this afternoon. We have declared for the principle of monetary union. We have declared that there is no constitutional bar and that the unambiguous economic benefit to this country is the
912
overriding criterion. But we have also said—as we have always said—that this is a decision of such importance that it has to be a decision for the British people. If we were to abandon the triple lock and if we were to abandon the principle of a Cabinet recommendation to Parliament, and then a recommendation through a referendum before legislation is introduced, we would abandon the pledge we have already made. We cannot go further than we have done in ensuring that this is a democratic decision while at the same time ensuring that it is realistic in economic terms.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend about the criteria for convergence as our inflation rates have converged and our unemployment rate is better than that of Europe. Are we now to consider only interest rates; that is, is it when interest rates converge that we shall think we are in sync? Are they short-term interest rates or long-term interest rates? Do we wait for a complete cyclical agreement to rejoin after a full cycle has been gone through, in sync, or do we do so before that happens?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, cyclical convergence as we have described it is wider than inflation rates or indeed inflation rates plus interest rates. I do not think our inflation rates have converged. It is certainly not true to say that our short-term interest rates have converged with those of most other European countries. My noble friend is of course quite right that one of the major benefits of a single currency will be the reduction of longer-term interest rates. We saw some benefit in that direction immediately after a government took over who were prepared from the beginning to re-examine the question of European monetary union. As to my noble friend's specific question about how convergent economic cycles have to be, the answer is that they can never be completely convergent. The judgment we are making now is that the lack of convergence between our economy and that of other European countries is so great that the economic benefit, which is our fundamental criterion for membership, simply does not exist at the moment. In answer to my noble friend's final question, it would not have to be seen through a whole cycle in order to be proved. Indeed the whole thrust of the Government's economic policy is to avoid the kind of cyclical boom and bust which has been the characteristic of our economy for so many years.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm quite categorically that the commitment of this Government is that the debate will ensue on the basis of full factual information, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as to when and if it is right to go in, and that we will not go in unless it is considered, on objective analysis, that it is—as put quite simply by my noble friend—in the interests of Britain?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unless there is some trap which I do not expect from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I think I can agree with him. However, I shall have to read his words carefully. I do

913
not know whether the noble Lord has ever appeared on those television programmes where one is asked the same question 10 times in the hope that on one occasion one will be out of sync, and that answer will be taken up as it is in conflict with the others. However, in principle, the noble Lord is right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is no trap and I do not appear on television programmes.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Statement referred many times to greater EU trade. Will the Government concern themselves with the effect of embracing a national minimum wage and social chapter that would render our capacity to compete more difficult? What was the Treasury advice on the effect on this country's non-EU trade of which we have a far greater percentage than our partners?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I reject that premise. I do not agree with the noble Viscount that a minimum wage would affect our competitiveness and make it harder for us to compete, particularly in Europe. But having said that, he will recognise that many European countries have minimum wages. It is still a matter for determination and we have a commission under Professor George Bain which is considering at what level a minimum wage is set.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I asked a question about non-EU trade of which we have a far greater percentage than our partners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the share of our international trade with other European markets continues to increase and my rejection of the noble Viscount's original premise applies to non-European trade too.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the Chancellor has emphasised the risks of going in in 1999, and has ruled out entry then, and of course there are risks for every country going into the euro. However, what the Chancellor has not spelt out, it seems to me, are the risks of this country not going in. I refer to possible speculation against the pound. If the pound becomes overvalued, and if we have high interest rates, the economic risks for this country are great. Will the Government try to instigate a broader debate on not only the risks of going in but also the risks of staying out when there is a successful launch of the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am bound to say I thought that a large part of the Statement was taken up with an assessment of the risks both of going in and of staying out. I thought that we had recognised that in a balanced way. The assessment which the Treasury has made of the economic tests, which are our criteria for the decision to join, has led to the conclusion that going in is a risk not worth taking. However, that is alleged against an assessment of the risks of staying out. If I may indulge in some advertising, I refer the
914
noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to the document of my noble friend Lord Currie on the pros and cons of EMU, a summary of which was published by the Treasury in July. I believe that document sets out the situation fairly and that it is still applicable.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I think the whole project of EMU and a single currency is so risky that I would not touch it with a barge pole? Is he further aware that my noble friend Lord Desai asked him a number of questions about convergence which I believe he did not answer? Just whom will we be convergent with? Are we to be convergent with the Stalinist French, or with the Germans, or with the Italians, or with the Spanish with their unemployment rate of 22 per cent? If we are to be convergent, how long does my noble friend think convergence will take, and what will happen to the British economy while we are converging with those states?
Will my noble friend give absolute priority to employment and a continued reduction in unemployment, until there is full employment in this country? That was what I thought the Labour Party was about—and I hope is still about.
Finally—the question was asked of him by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne—has any estimate been made of the total cost to industry, commerce, Government and individuals of preparations for something which may not happen? I sincerely hope that it will not happen.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has the supreme virtue of consistency. I have never been in any doubt as to what he felt about these issues; and I am not put in any doubt by what he says now. I hope that my noble friend Lord Desai will agree that I answered his questions about convergence criteria. I did not answer a question—I had not been asked it—about with whom we are convergent. My noble friend Lord Stoddart seems to think that there is something wrong with having convergent economic criteria with those who have different economic policies. One of the points that my noble friend will have to learn is that a single currency does not mean a single economic policy common to all countries. There will still be considerable scope for variation in economic policies, significantly for the protection of high and full employment, as he asks.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to appreciate that his Statement came as something of a disappointment to many loyal Euro-realists on this side of the House? We had begun to hope that the Labour Government were going to be so foolish as to join this crazy scheme. In order to support that position, can I ask the Minister whether he is aware how difficult it is now to find foreign exchange dealers in the City who will tell the truth as to how ill fated they regard the whole EMU project to be because they have already taken out enormous forward positions which will prove very profitable when it fails to fly, as they are sure it will?

915
Perhaps I may raise two final points of detail on his Statement to the Minister. First, he agreed with the value of our opt-out. Before he is convinced of that, can I ask the Minister to examine the 10 articles which are left in the Treaty of Rome which are not excluded in the protocol giving us our opt-out and which may nullify it in the end? Finally, when he considers the cost of preparation for EMU, will the Minister be very honest with the public as to the costs of transition to this absurd currency in the future and put them against the much vaunted savings in transaction costs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me deal with the noble Lord's last question first. Yes, of course we shall be very honest with the British public about all aspects of the costs of entry into the European monetary union, although I do not think that in the wording of the referendum we shall talk about "this absurd currency".
At the same time, I sympathise with the disappointment of those whom the noble Lord calls the Euro-realists in the Conservative Party. I had rather thought that those he calls Euro-realists—some of us call them Europhobes—had taken over the Conservative Party. I rather look forward to the next election when we shall see how far the noble Lord's views dominate the manifesto of the Conservative Party.

Ceremony of Introduction
Debate resumed.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am very glad that the speakers on the Motion have seemed to be in favour of it because it is an argument which will rumble on if we do not bring it out and discuss it thoroughly.
Before I get down to the subject of the Motion, I wish to pick up one remark made by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that this Government wish to abolish the hereditary Peers. Not so, my Lords. We are not abolishing hereditary Peers. They will carry on as they have always done, healthily and happily I hope. All we are abolishing is their right to vote. But that is an argument for another day.
The opinions which I express this afternoon are my own based on 15 years in this House and, I suspect, several hundreds of introductions, most of which I seem to have attended. Given the pressure on parliamentary time, the increase in the number of introductions, and the likelihood that these trends will continue, it seems right to consider whether the current ceremony meets our present day requirements. I am grateful to the Clerk of the Parliaments for his extremely useful document, even if the Lord Privy Seal suggests that it may be improper. It has been very helpful to this debate.
There is a widely shared view that the present ceremony is too long and comic in parts, and for those of us who out of courtesy attend as many as possible, however well disposed we may be towards the participants in the ceremony, the repetition is tedious. I sympathise with Black Rod and Garter and the Clerks
916
who have double duty since they must also attend rehearsals. Therefore they have to sit through the ceremonies twice as many times. Yet, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said, we recognise that for the new Peer and his or her family and friends it is a special day and for them we must ensure that the occasion is memorable and dignified.
There have been today a number of suggestions for shortening the ceremony. They are probably all worth considering. I agree that the ceremony could be shortened by replacing the slightly absurd three bows by one bow from a Front Bench. I believe that that was the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. That would have the added advantage of allowing existing Peers to occupy the Back Benches before the ceremony and would cut down some of the scuffling that takes place afterwards.
There is a suggestion that new Peers could be introduced in groups. But that would not only detract from each individual's experience, it would also reduce the most valuable quality of the present ceremony: that of allowing the House to recognise the newcomer.
I suggest—I know that my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal does not agree with this—that the best solution would be to return to the practice of an investiture by the Sovereign. This would more than compensate the new Peer for any feeling of being part of a group. The new Peer could then attend at a later date to take the oath in the way that Peers by succession do at present. We would then have the opportunity to recognise him. It would also meet the objection of my noble friend Lord Richard to the queue which Peers must join in order to take their seats.
Finally, I do not favour the suggestion outlined in the Clerk's paper that there should be a different ceremony for the Honours list and the working list. Such a distinction would undermine the principle of equality which is one of the greatest assets of this place. In any case the attempt to distinguish between the two groups could cause confusion outside. Any observer of our activities will know that there are some Peers on the working list who do not work, and some Peers on the Honours list who work very hard indeed.
I hope that we may soon reach a decision on how to proceed. The present ceremony is outdated. It needs changing both to save time and to preserve the dignity which should attend what is still an important honour for those concerned.
5.19 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may start by offering an apology. I am a member of the Procedure Committee but was unable to attend the committee meeting which discussed this matter. Perhaps I may also declare what I might call a negative interest in so far as I have never participated in an Introduction ceremony. I have never been introduced myself and have never acted as a supporter because Earls have not exactly been the flavour of the decade and therefore not many have been introduced. It is a slight quirk that the Government apparently seem to wish to see vaporised those who are here by the procedures which they have in mind.

917
I was interested in the speech made by the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal. It was deeply enticing. I found it fascinating. I always like to make a speech when I have the noble Lord the Leader of the House on my side. It is rather like being back at school playing toy soldiers; you always like to have the howitzer on your side.
I am afraid that I could not agree with the noble Lord in his conclusions. To me, the ceremony is tremendous—full of colour, ritual, pageantry and symbolism. That is very important. I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the House agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, made an impressive remark. He said that he was impressed by three ceremonies in which he had taken part. I have not taken part in so many as that. I was impressed with the one ceremony in which I participated; namely, the opening of Parliament. I was accorded the privilege of carrying the Cap of Maintenance. At the rehearsal which took place the day before we were all in our plain clothes. I was given a piece of rolled up paper and told, "That is the Cap of Maintenance". I looked at it, slightly surprised. Nevertheless, I carried it round, and we all walked around in what might be described as a shambolic way. However, when the actual day arrived, everyone was dressed up in uniform or in their robes, and they all had a part to play. It was not the individual who mattered; it was the person. Instead of having a rolled up piece of paper, I was given a piece of wood with a hat on top of it. That added to the pageantry, too.
Symbolism is very important. You can tear anything to pieces, rather like a tapestry, by pulling at any particular thread; you can make an absurdity out of anything. The noble Lord the Leader of the House said that part of the Introduction ceremony is ridiculous—people lifting their hats and putting them back on. I do not see that that is any more ridiculous than a Peer kneeling in front of the Lord Chancellor. Nor is it any more ridiculous than the fact that Finance Bills are passed in old-fashioned French. Of course you can make a mockery of it if you wish to, but the whole is quite important. I would not wish to see it changed in that respect.
There is an argument that the ceremony takes too long. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, made that point; and she said that part of it was tedious. I do not find it tedious. It is remarkable. And almost everyone made the point that it is valuable to those who have been made Peers and to their friends. It is a great honour. Nowadays one is told that it is not an honour; it is a job of work. But it is, in fact, a great honour to be made a Peer. It is therefore right that the ceremony should continue.
If 11 minutes is too long, what amount of time is sufficient? If it is cut down to eight minutes, is that all right? Or should it be five minutes, three minutes, one minute? I really do not think that the length of time is a factor. Perhaps the matter should be viewed in this way. The Government of the day have decided, for reasons that we all understand, that they wish to create a large number of Peers. It is commonly said that it is not an honour but a job of work. So how does the poor new
918
Peer carry out his job of work? When he comes to this House he makes speeches. If a whole lot of new Peers are created, they all come along and make a whole lot of speeches; the debates get longer, the proceedings get longer, and the Government of the day say, "Help, we must cut this down. How shall we cut it down? We must cut down on the Introduction ceremony; that can be reduced from 11 minutes to eight minutes". That will apparently make a vast difference to the proceedings of your Lordships' House! That is not the case at all.
It seems to have escaped many of your Lordships that the greatest contribution your Lordships can often make to a debate is for your Lordships to keep your Lordships' mouths shut. That is then to the general satisfaction of the remainder of your Lordships' House, if not to the satisfaction of the person on whom the retribution has been visited.
One has to be fairly careful when these matters are altered. I know that the Government are very keen on modernising almost everything. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that the modernisation is good. Last week in Edinburgh we heard the ghastly, whacky modern rendition of the national anthem in Edinburgh. It was a total disaster for the monarchy, the National Anthem and everyone listening to it. I hope that we do not make any similar mistakes. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be very careful before making too many strident suggestions in this respect. He suggests that the matter should be considered by a committee. Perhaps it should. However, I hope that the committee will remember that, very often, when experimental limits of 30 miles an hour are introduced they seem to end up being there for ever. Whenever a double yellow line is laid down for an experimental period, it is there for ever. One has to be very careful when altering a ceremony such as this to make quite sure that any alteration is an improvement and not a disfigurement. Personally, I should like to see the ceremony remain as it is. It is not a waste of time at all. Nor do I think it is ridiculous. It enhances the prestige of the Peers taking part, and it enhances the prestige of this House.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I venture to intervene in the debate for one short, simple reason. An analogy that I can recount to your Lordships might be of some relevance. I refer to the ceremony of taking Silk, or becoming a QC. It is an enormous honour to be in the Silk list. It is a moment of great joy for one's family, who take part in the ceremony. One sees wives attending with a look of cheerful glee at the prospect—which is a total illusion—that, with the treadmill of junior work behind him, the husband can at last be at home pulling his weight occasionally.
In 1961 I took Silk. It was a vintage year, because my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman was in the list; so was the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. In those days the Silks—there were 20 of us—were lined up on the left-hand side of the court, and went round every court in the Royal Courts of Justice. The judge who presided would utter these words to each of the successful applicants:

919
"Her Majesty having been pleased to appoint you one of Her Counsel Learned in the Law, you will take your seat within the Bar accordingly".
You then walked to the front row; you stood in the middle; you bowed to the right; you bowed to the left; you turned round and bowed to the junior Bar—with some enthusiasm, because you were going to rely on them to some extent for future work—then you bowed to the court itself, and then sat down. The judge presiding then said: "Mr. Brown, do you move?", which was a request to know whether you had any application to make. You resisted saying, "with difficulty, my Lord", and silently got up and walked out. That took between two and three minutes per Silk. The variation—50 per cent.—which I timed on a small calculator on one occasion, showed that one must not be too intolerant about the variation in time taken by Silks when they get down to the real work.
That ceremony occurred in every court. It took up a great deal of time—time that was being paid for by litigants whose cases were being interrupted. Gradually the procedure has been streamlined. The appearance now takes place only before the Lord Chief Justice's court. He sits with the Master of the Rolls on his right and the President of the Family Division on his left. That has cut down the time enormously. It has in no way detracted from the importance or attractiveness of the ceremony. It has given rise to no form of criticism. On the contrary, it is an enormous relief to the judiciary, to the Silks involved and to the litigants, who would otherwise have their cases disrupted. It occurs to me that that is an analogy which might interest your Lordships.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has given us this opportunity to express our views on Introductions, at a timely moment when we are having such an orgy of them. I am particularly grateful as I am a member of the procedure committee but, as I was abroad, missed the meeting on 15th October and the discussion which took place then. The minutes of that meeting tell us nothing of the discussion, but I think we can assume a good deal of it from the speech of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal at the opening of the debate.
I congratulate the Clerk of the Parliaments on his interesting, comprehensive and impartial paper. It is very satisfactory to know that there is no reason why we should not change the procedure; I, for one, am strongly of the opinion that we should.
I was interested to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his firm view that we should stick to present procedure. It reminded me of the speech that he made in 1958 during the Second Reading debate on the Life Peerages Act when he was so forcefully against the introduction of women. His views are not always absolutely up to date!
I was surprised that Garter thought that most Peers do not want change and I should like to know how he came to that conclusion. Which Peers did he canvass? I was not one of them.
920
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has indicated that the Conservative Back-Bench Peers would not support change, but I do not think the noble Viscount said that in his speech today.
The Introduction ceremony has evolved over the years and this seems a suitable moment for a further evolution. We are told that the Commons is modernising, and we ourselves have made a number of changes over the past few years in the way in which we conduct our business.
During the summer I spoke to a large number of Peers about this matter. That was before the marathon to which Peers have been subjected over the last two weeks and to which they continue to be subjected. I believe that all those to whom I spoke supported change, favouring a shorter ceremony.
I was interested to read of the debate in March 1975. The arguments for change listed in (a) to (j) in paragraph 15 of the paper by the Clerk of the Parliaments are totally convincing, with the possible exception of (f), that a shorter ceremony would encourage more Peers to attend. I question that. I shall not waste time by reading out the rest, as I am sure that noble Lords have them before them.
I find the arguments against totally unconvincing except for (e), that the ceremony is a great occasion for new Peers, their families and friends. I believe it is, but a shorter ceremony could still be a great occasion and perhaps more comfortable for those with children or grandchildren in their party who may well become bored with the present ceremony, unless they look on the whole thing as a pantomime—as in some ways it is, but that aspect should not be encouraged.
A ceremony of some sort is necessary for fellow Peers to see and recognise the new Peer since not all are widely known. It is an important day, even for the blasé. Equally it can be ridiculous: the clambering up to the back bench, particularly when a Peer is slightly disabled; and the three doffings, Peers sometimes forgetting whether to put their hat on their head or their breast, with watching Peers giving them marks out of 10.
I was interested that, although he did not speak in the debate in 1975, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, then Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have the greatest admiration, supported change, as did Lord Shackleton in 1971—a long time ago—when he was Leader of the Opposition, saying that the ceremony was too long.
Like my noble friend Lady Nicol I do not think that Peers on the Honours List and those on the list of working Peers should be treated differently; Peers are equal. Nor do I support mass Introductions on a Friday, for the reasons given by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I see that that would be convenient for those who organise the business, but it would not be a special day, a special occasion, for the individual Peer and the family and friends. I guess that there would be a poor attendance and the objective, that the new Peer would be made known to his fellow Peers, would be lost.
To sum up, I favour a shorter ceremony but a dignified one, which I believe the present ceremony is not. The reading of the Patent could still take place but

921
not that of the Writ. If we retain doffing, we could have one instead of three and perhaps the front Cross-Bench or the Privy Council Bench could be used instead of having Peers clamber up to the back one.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, when a Motion identical to this was tabled in March, 1975, I tabled an amendment against it which was carried by over three-quarters of the House then present. I should therefore explain why, in default of any other noble Lord taking such a step, I have thought it right not to do so today.
On that occasion the humble Address was moved by a single government Back Bencher. When the Leader of the House moves such a Motion, however, I believe it would be a discourtesy for your Lordships not to accept it and to give the proposal the appropriate amount of scrutiny. But I should not like it to be thought that acceptance of the Motion unamended today means that the House as a whole has changed its mind.
Your Lordships will, of course, listen to everything that is said on this subject at every stage and a final decision will only be taken when the matter eventually comes back to the whole House. But I must tell your Lordships that my present view—and nothing that I have heard so far in the debate this afternoon has altered it—is the same as it was in 1975.
Even if it should come about that, by saving 10 minutes at the beginning of the day, the House might either rise 10 minutes earlier or get that amount more business done, I would still wish to preserve this ceremony for its own sake.
The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that he already knew most new life Peers and that that could not be said for new hereditary Peers. But he misses the point. The ceremony is not so much to introduce the Peer to the House as to introduce the House and its traditions to the Peer. Is it such a very dreadful thing to ask him to jump through a few hoops to this end at the start of his time here? It is certainly not begrudged by 19 out of 20 of the new Peers themselves, and it is appreciated by their families and friends. It is validated by 376 years. Shorten it or tamper with it in any way and it will only go back to 1997. What is accepted as a compromise by one side of the argument is almost always seen merely as a stepping-stone towards total change by the other. Just how long would the new, abbreviated, ceremony last?
It is an awful modern habit to try to do away with tradition. But this House works by tradition. Take away this most spectacular one, the first to be encountered by every new Peer, and which of the remainder will be safe? The Salisbury-Addison Convention is no more than a tradition, but how would we get on without it? It is accepted that the Leader of the House is Leader of the whole House and not just of the party in power. In the absence of a Speaker, there is acceptance of the Leader of the House as the ultimate arbiter in any dispute over order. My Lords, those are just a few of the traditions that will be at risk if this ceremony goes.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal for introducing this debate, it may be useful to make three points on the basis of principle and precedent and then provide some words of explanation.
First, as other noble Lords have said, this House is a working House of Parliament. We are all summoned to treat—that is, to discuss—and to give counsel—that is, to advise Her Majesty, in practice the Government of the day—on arduous and urgent affairs of state.
Secondly, when we sit in the House of Lords we are all equal. Whether we be Barons or Dukes, Bishops or Archbishops, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or the Lord Chancellor himself, we have equal rights to speak. When we vote in the Lobbies, our votes all weigh the same.
Thirdly, there is a precedent for a very simple ceremony of Introduction. When Peers by succession take their seats for the first time they simply, without robes or supporters, take the oath, sign the Roll and shake the Lord Chancellor by the hand. I commend that procedure to the House. I am bolstered in that commendation by the support of many of my colleagues in this Chamber. I believe that this is the only occasion in my parliamentary experience—I suspect it will be the only occasion in future—when Labour colleagues on this side of the House support the hereditary position.
By way of explanation, it is worth highlighting that a distinction can be recognised between Letters Patent, which confer the honour of a peerage, and the Writ of Summons, which summons us to do our duty by discussing the affairs of state and offering advice. But we also need to recognise that ceremony is important. That is a point to which a number of previous speakers have alluded. From the papers considered by the Procedure Committee and made available to us, it appears that the present ceremony of introduction is not, strictly speaking, part of the procedure of the House. It was interesting to learn that King James I may have been too embarrassed to invest titles personally owing to the fact that he was rumoured to have sold them to his cronies. I wonder whether that is the origin of "It's in the post". There is also the hint that the Garter King of Arms devised the present ceremony to ensure that he was paid, since he received a fee for such ceremonies.
We are entitled to be curious as to why conferring a peerage, unlike other honours conferred on citizens of this land, is not done personally by Her Majesty in Buckingham Palace. In that regard I support the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Nicol that the Sovereign should confer the title and that would provide the opportunity for the ceremonial.
So far nobody has raised the question of the use of parliamentary robes. We all attend State Opening in our robes, with the Sovereign present. I argue that the use of parliamentary robes and the use of coronation robes should only be considered in the presence of Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs or successors. Having considered the matter in due debate and given serious thought to whether Peers may use their parliamentary rights on some other occasion, other than when the

923
sovereign is present, we must ask whether we run the risk of, if I may so describe it,lèse majesté. In the future, will we see a situation in which some impoverished Conservative hereditary Peer decides to go on a speaking tour of America in the glare of television lights, complete with his parliamentary robes? I do not suggest that it will happen but we need to be clear that that kind of thing would be the wrong way to proceed.
Finally, I have argued a principled point of view, but I appreciate that we may wish to move in stages. On that basis, I hope that if the reading of a document at the introduction of a Peer to this House is deemed necessary, it is the Writ of Summons that is read. That will be a salutory reminder to the new Peer and all those present of the reasons why we sit here in Parliament.
5.44 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, King James VI made 47 new Peers in 18 years. The Government have created over 60 new Peers in a few months and we are now sitting at 2.15 p.m. on three days a week so that nine or more Peers a week can be introduced. At that rate they will all be through comfortably before Christmas.
Now we are gathered together here to decide whether to request of Her Majesty that she should graciously permit us to tinker with the Introduction ceremony so that new Peers can be processed more quickly than has hitherto been possible without reducing the time available for other parliamentary business.
First, it may be pertinent to ask why there is such a hurry to process new Peers. I accept the undeniable fact that numbers on the Labour Benches have in past years made it difficult, owing to the age and infirmity of many of their number, to man the Front Bench. But a glance at the Government Front Bench now makes it quite clear that that is no longer the case. The Leader of the Opposition has assured the House that, so far as he and his colleagues are concerned, the Salisbury convention will be observed. Therefore, the Government are in no danger of this House failing to pass important legislation for which they have a mandate from the electorate, even without all the new Peers that they have announced. Therefore, I cannot help wondering whether the reason is that the Government are not prepared to tolerate what all governments hitherto have had to tolerate; namely, losing any Divisions on amendments to Bills, however sensible and desirable those amendments may be. If that is the case, democracy is flying out of the window and dictatorship is coming in at the door. Under those circumstances, there is no point in this House existing. It would be more honest, as my father often said, to abolish it, so that no one in this country was in any doubt that there was single chamber government.
Next, one might ask whether we are so short of parliamentary time at present in this House that 11 minutes per new Peer cannot be spared from the day's business. I do not think that we are. If the object is to make time for more legislation, we must ask ourselves whether more legislation is desirable.
924
I shall comment on some of the suggestions made for curtailing the ceremony. It has been suggested that the reading of either Letters Patent or the Writ or both should be omitted. Both are of importance. The Letters Patent make the individual concerned eligible to receive a Writ and the Writ is what makes him eligible to sit in this House. If one were to be omitted, I should prefer it to be the Writ since that is always the same except for the name of the Peer. But I do not believe that either should be omitted. The time saved—about 2½ minutes in each case—is very little.
It has been suggested that the "placing" of the Peer be omitted. The doffing of hats has been described by some as "very comic", "absurd" and "Gilbertian"; and we have been told that some Peers taking part feel ridiculous. I suggest that it is possible to poke fun at almost any ceremony—and very enjoyable too—but that does not mean that the ceremony is pointless or that it should be altered or abolished, particularly when it is of great antiquity and part of the traditional ceremonial of the Mother of Parliaments, which is the envy of the world. There is nothing undignified in it so long as it is carried out in a dignified manner, as is usually the case. Not long ago, when hats were normal streetwear for men, it was the custom to remove them. No doubt that was because when greeting people with a how one had to remove one's hat first so that it did not fall off. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her colleagues should buy some hat pins. I hope that, if wearing hats by men becomes fashionable again—as assuredly it will one day—that custom will he revived.
If it comes to that, one could quite well poke fun at the custom of shaking hands. That is no less ridiculous than bowing and taking off one's hat and it can be quite painful. As for the plea of feeling ridiculous, those who do might think a little less of themselves and their image and a little more about the significance of the ceremony in which they are taking part. I wonder whether it does anyone any harm to feel ridiculous occasionally. It may even be quite good for those—very few, but there are a few—who come to this Chamber puffed up with a sense of their own importance.
As initiation ceremonies go, it is very innocuous. After all, candidates are not expected to be smeared with some filthy substance or eat or drink some disgusting concoction. But be all that as it may, there are probably as many new Peers who enjoy their introduction as not. Why should they and their families be deprived of their great day in order to accommodate the prejudices of a few individuals who have come here ready to reform us before they have even arrived.
Those who have read the paper on the The origin of Peers in the House of Lords, as probably most who are taking part in the debate will have done—it was mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—will be aware that page 124, footnote 2, reads:
"The question why three bows and neither more nor less figure both in the old and the modem ceremony is often asked. The answer probably is that three has been a sacred number in widely separated times and places, both non-Christian and Christian, and that this is merely one example among very many. A good collection of references to three as a sacred number will be found in the article Numbers in James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics

925
[volume 9] where it is suggested that though their currency is by no means confined to these, three and nine as sacred numbers are especially characteristic of the Indo-European peoples from Vedic and Iranian religions through Greek and Roman, to Teutonic and Celtic down to Christian. Among many examples the following of thrice repeated ritual actions may be worth mentioning: the Greek funeral pyre was circumambulated three times; in the offering to Mars and Sylvanus for the welfare of cattle the offerings were three portions each of spelt and wine; Varro records that a formula against gout was repeated 27 times; Celtic mythology is full of triads, and in particular the deiseal or ceremonial circumambulation was performed three times; Adam of Bremen describes a spring festival held every nine years at Uppsala at which nine of each male kind were offered".
In Christianity we have the Trinity and a whole echelon of supernatural beings ranging from seraphim down to angels, nine different varieties.
Your Lordships will all have different views as to the significance or otherwise of numbers. It will not have escaped notice that nine bows are made in the Introduction ceremony. The significance of numbers is part of ancient wisdom which is not understood today and at which it is fashionable to scoff. I wonder whether that is wise. For my part, I should not like to dispense with a part of the ceremony, the reasons for which are of far greater antiquity than the ceremony itself and have religious and mystical connotations which I do not suppose many of us understand. I certainly do not.
I am not superstitious about many things but I am about indulging in the kind of hubris which rejects anything that it does not understand on the grounds that it is just an old superstition and nowadays we know better. I hope your Lordships will reject any suggestion that the Introduction ceremony should be abolished or curtailed. If we once lose it we will never get it back again, and it will no doubt be the catalyst which will trigger the abolition of more of our lovely, colourful ceremonies which makes this House unique among second chambers.
5.53 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, which struck me was when he said that the Introduction procedure is inherently part of the procedure of the House as it exists at the moment, and for that reason a delay until the Labour Party decides what it will do with us should take place. It occurred to me then and when my noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke—if the Lord Privy Seal and his party are to abolish hereditary Peers—that there was talk of appointing some hereditary Peers as life Peers. If my noble friend Lord Ferrers and I were to be so appointed, it would be nice if I could be a supporter of my noble friend and he a supporter of mine; then we too could join in the ceremony from which to date we have been excluded.
If one is to reform anything, one needs to know what one is reforming. I am one of many on the Procedure Committee who is grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for drawing our attention to the paper on the Introduction of Peers in the House of Lords. That goes some way to answering the remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said that our procedures are held in some disdain by some members of the
926
public. In fact, it is a lack of understanding of our procedures which leads to such a view, if such a view exists—I do not believe it does.
Some people may say our procedures are antiquated and that there is a great deal of history to them, and others will knock them; but when one reads how they came into being one is in a better position to argue with those who want change. Change is always in the interests of the business managers; it is in their vested interest to have a shorter introductory ceremony. I confess to sitting on the Front Bench opposite at times wishing the Introduction ceremony were shorter so that I could get on with what I saw as an important piece of legislation. That was a personal view and not the view of the House. The view of the House is that the Introduction ceremony is a good ceremony and, if there is to be change, it should be considered carefully by all.
I seldom disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, but I disagreed on one point this afternoon. The noble Baroness said that the ceremony was boring for children. I know of at least one child today who was enthralled by all three ceremonies and would happily come again to watch more, despite the length of time they took. The argument on the length of time the ceremony takes put forward by the Lord Privy Seal smacks of an argument of the lowest common denominator. There can be nothing substantial in it. As my noble friend Lord Denham said: "What are we shortening it for?" I hope that the argument is disregarded.
There is justification for looking at the ceremony, to its dignity and whether it fits the procedure of the House; but the argument based on time is a complete fallacy. At the end of the day if we save six or eight minutes it will make no difference to this Chamber. Similarly with the doffing of hats and the bowing, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. It is a mystical and inherent part of the procedure and I would hate to see it change.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it may be thought presumptuous that I should seek to make a contribution to the debate, having been introduced only two weeks ago, against a background where many contributors to the debate have had long experience of speaking in this House. But I do so because my memory of the ceremony of the Introduction may be more graphic than most because of its recent occasion.
I can report that against a background where my work in politics has always been at the radical end of my party and where my family also support a great number of causes of a radical kind, that all my family of two generations—both my generation and the next, which so often defines myself as being in a somewhat fuddy-duddy role—agreed that they enjoyed the experience and felt that it had been a highly significant day. That was certainly my impression.
While there are good arguments, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal indicated, for reducing the time involved in the Introduction ceremony, there is at least one aspect which we ought to bring within a modern

927
framework. Of course we are talking about tradition. But this House is a house which has existed on the basis of adaptation of tradition to modern realities, otherwise it would long since have been swept away.
What is the basis of newly arriving Members of the House being introduced and doffing their hats to the Lord Chancellor from the Opposition Benches? I waited for 18 years to form part of the governing party in this country and was introduced to this Chamber from the Opposition Benches. That cannot make sense. It is to deny the significance of party. I can quite understand why King James I was none too interested in party. He certainly wanted no faction that challenged his power. But we are in a different age. Everyone knows that party is the reality of politics.
We all know that we take our places in the House on the basis of party or that those without a party who wish to represent themselves here from a more neutral stance sit on the Cross-Benches. We sit because of our designation. Surely therefore the ceremony should take into account that basic fact. If we are relating any part of the ceremony to the actual taking of one's seat, it should be the other way round from the position at present. The Member should not be introduced from the Opposition Benches but he or she should be conducted to the Bench on which he or she proposes to sit. That is the basis on which we are all here.
On this occasion I disagree with my noble friend Lady Nicol, who suggested that the solution might be investiture elsewhere. It is important that we are introduced to the House. What was said earlier is right. The purpose of the ceremony is so that the new arrival can be recognised by the House to which he or she has been introduced. However, I certainly think there is a good case for speeding up the ceremony. We should look again at the old tradition which denied the concept of party or from whence one came and bring that into the modern era.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. I salute him in that, unlike me, he arrived in the House on merit. I was delighted to hear that his family spent an enjoyable afternoon watching his Introduction into the House. I would not wish to deprive them of that enjoyment. But perhaps he might like to ask them this question. Would they like to see three times a day the ceremony we have when we introduce every life Peer, be they temporal or spiritual? The ceremony takes 11 minutes. We will have spent 200 minutes debating whether we should have the ceremony. We could have introduced 20 Peers during that time. However, I think it well worth debating the issue.
I thank the Lord Privy Seal for giving us the opportunity to debate this point. I also thank that distinguished servant of the House, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. Michael Davies, for his six-page memorandum. It is lucid, concise and impartial. We thank him for it. In it he mentions everything. There is, in a sense, nothing more to say. However, because we are Members of the House, we have a right and a duty to pronounce.
928
I declare an interest and I shall try not to grind an axe. I entered your Lordships' House in July of last year. I regard it as a privilege and an honour, and not as a job. I have a job elsewhere. I personally do not mind if the 800 or so hereditary Peers are removed from the House. I hope that I shall go with dignity and grace. But I point out to the Lord Privy Seal that there is indeed a better way of entering the House; and I did it.
I needed to produce four documents: my birth certificate, my predecessor's—in my case my father's—death certificate; and my parents' marriage certificate. I had to get them in the right order. I also had to produce a letter signed by a relation, who was a Member of your Lordships' House, who had in fact, and by luck, been in my parents' house probably on the day that I was conceived. He had to state that I was more than likely the son of my father. I did that. I then produced those documents to the Crown Office. I salute it for its hard work. Then there was a gap of 10 to 14 days while the Lord Chancellor—the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—and other legal experts perused the documents. I sympathise with Peers who have to wait a number of weeks to be introduced. I found 14 days to be frustrating as I wished soon afterwards to vote against one of the more ludicrous Bills then being introduced by the gentlemen on my left.
I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will consider putting before the Procedure Committee not only how we might change the system for introducing Life Peers but whether we can speed up the process of introducing hereditary Peers into the House. We all have the same rights once we are here. I am always suspicious of those who bring in historical tradition when they want to avoid a change. In my opinion, this ceremony of 340 years or so is a modern one. Let us not forget that this House is a thousand years old. If you want an example of how our predecessors entered the House on introduction, you have only to look at Pugin's statues around the Palace. They did not have robes. They came in working dress—what all of us are wearing now. We are wearing our working clothes.
Noble Lords will recall that once the Patent and the Writ of Summons are read out at the Dispatch Box noble Lords have the opportunity or option to take an oath or affirm. Why could not the Procedure Committee consider the option for life Peers who have earned their honours to have either the à la carte menu or to be introduced, as I would wish if I were a Life Peer, in working dress? Why should we not be more flexible? We are indeed a flexible Chamber.
I was delighted to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I can confirm that my ancestor, the first Earl, went to receive his Patent from the sovereign. As a former serviceman I can tell the House that if I had been deserving of an honour I would have gone to Buckingham Palace to receive that honour from the sovereign. I would regard that as the greatest day of my life, not a rather modern ceremony that we observe here far too often.
I hope that the committee will consider the options that I have put forward. I welcome the Lord Privy Seal's earnest and genuine desire to reform the House. I hope that he will not let us down.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I much welcome the Motion of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal as I certainly believe that the ceremony of Introduction should be changed. I well understand my noble friend's wish to achieve a consensus on a compromise position, but I also believe, as he does, that it is important that a variety of views are put on record about this matter today.
I shall be brief. I do not really consider that this subject requires lengthy discussion. There certainly ought to be more important matters of state and, indeed, of society, on which to spend our time and energy than this. It seems to me to be a remarkably simple and straightforward issue. We are a bicameral Parliament and our methods of introducing Members to it should be the same in both Chambers. Another place has a perfectly adequate and dignified method of introducing a new Member to the existing Parliament. Apart from the two sponsors it is akin to the method used in this House for hereditary Peers. We should have the same.
My noble friend Lady Nicol made a very interesting suggestion about an investiture. What happens in this House should be the same as in another place. I note from the excellent memorandum prepared by the Clerk of the Parliaments that one argument against change in 1975 was,
"Although parts of the ceremony were absurd so too were many other parliamentary ceremonies."
I find the conclusion that because there are other absurdities we should keep this one rather than change them all, rather quaint, if not downright bizarre. I am sorry to say that the words which I have quoted describe a great deal of the discussions which go on about this particular topic. It is simple. I know that I do not speak for myself alone when I say that we should harmonise our procedures of Introduction with those of another place and let us, for all our sakes, try to come into the 20th century, at least before we find ourselves in the 21st century.
6.12 p.m.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, this debate has gone on for a very long time and many points have been covered. I do not want to go over them again. Perhaps I may make one or two observations. The first is to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The reason the new life Peers are introduced to the Barons' Benches is that the House is divided geographically. If an Earl is introduced he will be introduced on the Earls' Benches and a Duke to the Dukes' Benches. Bishops go to the Bishops' Benches. The House is divided geographically, in addition to being divided as we now speak.
Secondly, we certainly need some ceremony of Introduction and there is no question about that. The life Peers enjoy it, as do their families. It is no mean achievement to get to this House, as has already been said. We should also take note that tradition is often much better if it is updated.
I take the point of the three bows. I am told that that comes from the religious significance of the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That sort of
930
thing now seems to be slightly out of date and perhaps one bow will do. I would like to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who suggested that the Introductions should be made from the back of the Cross Benches. The new Peers would then be seen; it is a central position and it is a much more appropriate place than the Back Benches where I am standing.
The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as regards Silks being created was excellent. That is an example of updating of great sense. It obviously made the ceremony shorter, but just as significant. I end by saying that I also believe that the Letters Patent and the Writ of Summons, which are so similar, being read twice seems too much.
James I got himself into an appalling muddle by selling peerages and eventually solved the matter by ordering Garter and the Earl Marshal to produce a more standard method of introduction in public in the Chamber of the House of Lords. That was promulgated on 29th August 1621 by the Earl Marshal and Garter. I would like to see an update promulgated after your Lordships have debated the matter in great depth and the Queen has agreed to it. She can then order the present Earl Marshal and Garter to produce an updated version for the introduction of Peers.
Finally, the updating of tradition is vital. I am in charge, by the great luck of tradition, of the opening of Parliament. I first did it in 1975 when my cousin died. The ceremony has been changed enormously. We just update it. Her Majesty makes recommendations. She always has to approve everything because it is her ceremony, her Parliament and her day. We should update and make ourselves more modern. It will then be much more pleasing for the new Peers and for the public.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. It was certainly interesting to hear what he had to say. I am sure that many Members of this House will be pleased at the proposition he put forward about the necessity to update and modernise our procedures.
I say at the outset that I am very grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate as a Member who took my seat only in June and whose memories of that occasion are quite vivid. It is a very great pleasure and privilege to serve in this House. One of the things that I have been strongly influenced by since I was elevated to this House is the number of friends, relatives and people whom I did not even know but who knew me in my former constituency and who have all said that it was an honour that had been given to me which was well earned. I am very grateful for those comments.
When considering the ceremony I recognise that it is historic and that most of it is dignified, although when I witnessed the hereditary Peers coming into the Chamber, saying a few words at the Dispatch Box and then walking down to shake hands with the Lord Chancellor, I wondered why on earth I could not do that instead of having to go through the procedure that I had to follow. I had a very large group present when I was

931
introduced. My wife, my sons, my daughter, in-laws and sisters all enjoyed the occasion immensely. They sat in the Gallery and told me later how very proud they had been to see me come in and to watch the ceremony that followed until the doffing of the hats. I thought that my eight year-old grand-daughter summed it up when we assembled on the Terrace to have tea after the event. She said to me, "Grand-dad, you didn't half look stupid in that long red dress, standing up and sitting down and putting on and taking off that silly black hat." Not half as stupid as I felt, I thought, when performing that particular act.
We also received a video of the ceremony and on three occasions we have had groups of friends round to watch the ceremony. All were very impressed with the significance of the ceremony, except for the doffing of the hats. On each occasion they almost fell off their seats with laughter. One of my friends said, "If Hollywood had made a film about the House of Lords and shown that procedure, I would have said that Hollywood had gone too far on this occasion."
When I came into the House a large group of my colleagues from the other place came to see the ceremony. Very few Members of the other place watch the ceremony of induction into this House. They were absolutely dumbfounded at the doffing of the hats, but they loved the rest of the ceremony.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for explaining to us the procedure of the doffing of the hats. Apparently, it has gone on since 1621. Having been introduced into your Lordships' House and participated in the ceremony, I asked one of my long-serving noble friends about the raison d'être for the doffing of the hats. His answer was, "I don't really know, but I presume that it has something to do with the Holy Trinity". The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, mentioned that, as did the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who spoke from the Cross Benches. That explanation may be correct, but having watched the ceremony of the doffing of the hats from these Benches, the only thing that I can say about it is that it is awful. It rates from bad to dreadful. I have no doubt that when I performed I was absolutely dreadful. I certainly felt greatly embarrassed.
I should say at this point that I do not support the proposition that the ceremony should take place in the presence of Her Majesty, presumably at Buckingham Palace. The ceremony should remain in this House and I believe that the new procedures which the Leader of the House has outlined are to be welcomed.
Last Thursday my noble friend Lady Amos was introduced and was supported by my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. To me and, I hope, to other Members of your Lordships' House, it was a distinguished and dignified occasion because noble Baronesses do not have to doff their hats; they simply bow to the Lord Chancellor. I was impressed by the dignity of that ceremony but, unfortunately, the next introduction featured noble Lords so back we went to the awful spectacle of putting the hats on and taking them off. I strongly support the proposition that that aspect of the ceremony should be
932
removed. It would undoubtedly shorten the procedure but, in my view, the strongest argument in favour of change is that leaving out only that element would increase and enhance the dignity of the House.
I should like to comment also on the ceremony of kneeling to the Lord Chancellor when one hands over the Writ. I have nothing against kneeling to the Lord Chancellor but when we become Members of this House many of us are getting on in years and our knees and hips are not as sound as they used to be. You sometimes wonder if you will manage to get up again. If we follow the suggestions made by the Lord Privy Seal, perhaps the Lord Chancellor will be able to dispense with his hat. I say no more about the Lord Chancellor's hat. Perhaps, however, he could stand up and there could be a dignified handshake at the Woolsack.
I am sure that all of us want to maintain the dignity of this House, and I am sure that people outside, particularly when they have a loved one being introduced into this House, would like some ceremony retained. I believe that it would be a great improvement if we were simply to omit the doffing of the hats.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I am glad that this debate refers to the "ceremony" of Introduction. The word "ceremony" must never be forgotten and I am glad that most noble Lords have supported it this afternoon. Introduction to this House is one of the most important days in the life of any new Peer and his or her family. I have watched the total concentration and pleasure on the faces of those families and have realised what it means to them. Any Peer who is bored or finds the ceremony awkward need not attend. The majority of us, however, remember our own Introductions and in our minds remember those awesome words of our Writ of Summons:
"Considering the difficulties of the said affairs and dangers impending, waiving all excuses",
that we should attend and speak.
Sadly, our work is no longer widely reported in the media, but it must never be forgotten that this is a working House. When we are introduced we enter a lifelong duty to the work of this House. We are individually responsible for order in debates. This is one of the most daunting places in which to speak as so many experts are present and our contributions must therefore be well prepared. A new Peer needs to be aware of those duties from the start. There should certainly be no difference in sense of duty between honoured peerages, working peerages or, in my mind, hereditary peerages—and certainly not between men and women. We all have an equal duty to this House. Our present ceremony underlines that fact and it has stood the test of time, as is shown by the regularity of attendance and the high standard of debate and order in our House.
Reading the suggestions that have been made for changes, it is clear that the Oath must remain. The Letters Patent must be read and I believe that the Writ must also remain. When three new Peers are introduced on any one day, if all new Peers were present together,

933
the Writ could be read only once, but that does not happen so the Writ must be read each time. The only possible change which might be acceptable is that the part of the ceremony which is described as "placing" could be shortened by sitting and doffing once only. If that were to happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, suggested, between the Bar and the Table, the whole House would be better able to see and one group of Peers would not be disturbed from their seats. I believe that the ceremony should be of an individual nature, in front of the whole House, on a normal day, and should continue to be marked by the wearing of the robes. There may be future occasions when large numbers of new Peers have to be introduced, as is the case this Session, but I do not believe that that should make for a substantial alteration.
I often speak to different groups of people about the work of the House of Lords. They are always interested and are surprised at the amount of work that is entailed, its voluntary nature and the fact that we wear our robes only on Introduction and at the State Opening. I should like to see more media publicity being given to the important modern work of this House in its detailed amendments to Bills and the work of its Select Committees. However, I believe that the ceremony of Introduction should retain its historic, solemn and special nature and should not be substantially modified.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I said at the beginning of the debate that I was looking forward to it with a great deal of anticipation, and I have not been disappointed. It has been a fascinating afternoon. Various Peers have spoken in favour of preserving the existing ceremony. Some have spoken in favour of its total abolition. My noble friend Lady Nicol would like the ceremony to be removed totally from the Palace of Westminster and sent back to the monarchy, and presumably to Buckingham Palace. If I may say so, the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, spoke with his usual bluff common sense and expressed some of the views which I hold and which I hope that I expressed earlier.
I cannot help observing in passing that those on the other side of the House who have spoken in favour of retaining the existing ceremony have all been hereditary Peers, except for the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, who has just spoken. None of them has had to go through the ceremony. It seems to me that the ceremony should be more than a mere spectator sport. Those who have spoken in favour of preserving the existing ceremony have expressed that view because of what they have observed, not because of what they have experienced personally or because of their personal appreciation of the significance of the ceremony.
Some of the arguments in favour of the existing ceremony have been mystical; some have been based on tradition; some have been historical and some have been "inertial" in the sense that the ceremony is there, so we should not change it. What we have not heard a great deal of have been utilitarian arguments in favour of maintaining the ceremony. I believe that only the noble Lord, Lord Denham, advanced such an argument. I see
934
that the noble Lord and the other of the two cavaliers, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, are both in their places this evening—I am delighted about that—but I am not sure which is the howitzer which the noble Earl thought was on his side at the beginning of his speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, said that the ceremony is important not only because it introduces a Peer to the House, but because it introduces the House to the Peer. The noble Lord nods his head in agreement. If that is true for life Peers why is it not true for Peers by succession? Why should not Peers by succession be similarly introduced to the House? Why should not the House similarly be introduced to those Peers? Is it believed that because they are Peers by succession somehow genetically or osmotically in the course of their upbringing they have accumulated such an innate knowledge of the virtues, proceedings and happenings in this House that they do not need what life Peers need? I shall give way to the noble Lord in one moment when I have finished my complaint. It seems to me that that was the only utilitarian argument that was put. If that is a valid argument then it should apply to all, but it does not.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I believe that hereditary Peers who are here by descent and who have inherited from fairly close relations will have learnt from them and by sitting on the steps of the Throne, as many of us do before we come here, the traditions of this House. They have been indoctrinated in those traditions. If I had been given the opportunity to go through the ceremony I would have leapt at it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hope that the Procedure Committee takes account of what the noble Lord has just said. Perhaps we can have two or three days of induction for all the hereditary Peers who are here so that they can go through the ceremony and thereby plant the imprint of total credibility upon their presence. I hear what the noble Lord has said. To say that somehow in the course of the upbringing of a Peer by succession he has acquired that which it is necessary for a life Peer to acquire by sitting on the Back Bench and doffing his hat three times does not strike me as a very convincing argument.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is not the doffing of the hat that is important but the bowing. The hat must be doffed so that it does not fall off when the Peer bows.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am floored by the noble Lady's remarks. I listened to the noble Lady's speech, in which she was almost totally in favour of preserving the existing ceremony. She now suggests that we can remove the hats. If we removed the hats to bow that would be an improvement. As my noble friend Lord Evans pointed out, at least we would not have to go through the strange ritual of removing the hat and putting it back on again. It is a hat that I had never seen before coming into the House. I know of no one who wears it. The only time that it is produced is on ceremonial occasions.

935
I do not want to venture into another area, but I inform the House that the most difficult ceremony of which I have experience is that which takes place at the proroguing of Parliament. A group of five or six of us sit there and do nothing except take our hats off seven times. We file in; we sit down; we take the hat off seven times and then turn round and go out. I find it difficult to convince myself, let alone any of my friends, relations or the country outside, that anything is added to the prorogation ceremony of Parliament by my sitting there and taking off a strange article of headwear.
If it is now proposed that we should abolish the hats but preserve that part of the ceremony without the hats it is at least a step forward. It is only a millimetre but I recognise it for what it is.
I do not propose to go into all of the details that have emerged in the course of this debate. I shall read them with very great interest. I merely observe that no one has said that the House should not pass the Motion standing in my name. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for what he said about that. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I went through the old Silk ceremony. My anitiquity is not as great as his. I remember spending a day moving from court to court and bench to bench. It is true that one bowed to both sides, to the rear and then to the judge. Mr. Richard was asked if he moved. I got up, bowed and then walked to the next court and did it all over again.
I am very glad that the inevitability of gradualness, at least as far as concerns the law, has produced a more sensible approach to that ceremony—I have no complaints about having a ceremony—than we appear to have had so far in this House. I hope that I made it clear at the outset that I was in favour of a dignified ceremony. I also hope that I made it clear that I was in favour of a ceremony which was consonant with the traditions of this House. But, with respect, it is not good enough for noble Lords to say that this ceremony has withstood the test of time. For centuries the ceremony did not have to withstand the test of time. It was only with the introduction of life Peers to this House in 1958 that the repetition of the ceremony became apparent. Before that the only time that the ceremony was used was when a new hereditary peerage was created. Then, on the first occasion that the holder of that peerage came to this House he (as it was in those days) went through that particular ceremony. With the advent of the Life Peerages Act the door has opened. It is not true to say that the ceremony has withstood the test of centuries. It has been in existence for some 40 years. With great respect, far from standing the test of time it is audibly creaking. I believe that the time has come when we should take a serious look at it. I commend this Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
6.37 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Prohibition of small-calibre pistols]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("firearm)") insert ("after the word "weapon" the words "(which includes an air pistol to which section 1 of this Act applies and which is designed to fire .22 or smaller diameter ammunition)" shall be inserted, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unlike the next few amendments, this amendment does not contradict government policy in any way. On the contrary, it is wholly in conformity with it. The amendment seeks to correct an anomaly created by the 1997 Act as a result of a drafting blunder made by the previous government. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 prohibited
"any self-loading or pump-action rifle other than one which is chambered for .22 rim-fire cartridges".
During the passage of the 1997 Act the previous government in what was described at the time as a technical amendment substituted the words "rifled gun" for "rifled" in this section of the legislation. The inadvertent effect of that is that self-loading air pistols can be included as prohibited firearms.
It has been recognised by both the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers that it was not the intention of the 1997 Act to ban such air pistols. The Act creates a blanket exemption for air weapons in Section 1(2), but seemingly self-loading air pistols are caught by the reference to "rifled gun" in Section 1(3). This amendment is designed to clarify the situation.
I believe that the amendment is correctly drafted: I have taken a fair amount of trouble over it. If it is not correctly drafted I hope that nevertheless the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will accept it, because then the other place with the assistance of the Home Office can put it right. If it is not accepted now there will he no chance to rectify the blunder committed by the previous government. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. It would allow a significant loophole in the Bill, because it would allow people to keep air pistols which fire pellets of .22 diameter or less at home on a firearm certificate. It is a greater exemption than was proposed under the 1997 Act, because under that Act these air pistols would have had to have been kept and used at a secure licensed pistol club.
These air pistols are not under the low calibre ones normally used for target shooting. These are high-powered air pistols—over six foot pounds. They can have a rapid rate of fire. They can be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. In law there would be no check whatever on the upper limit of the power that could be developed for these pistols.
I understand that current international target shooting competitions use low power, uncertificated air weapons which will not be affected by the Bill. Throughout the

937
passage of the Bill, we have stated constantly that the Government are not disposed to agree to allow exemptions to the general ban on hand guns which the Bill seeks to introduce. In the light of my comments, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I did not realise that it was the Government's intention to ban such weapons. I do not believe that that was general knowledge until now. In the light of what he has just said, I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("the words "a small-calibre pistol" shall cease to have effect") and insert ("after the words "a small-calibre pistol" the words "which has a barrel length not less than 20.3 cm in length and which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design" shall be inserted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 which are all consequential upon this amendment.
This is the last attempt to save something from the wreck caused by two successive governments effecting firearms legislation. The object is to enable Great Britain to continue to take part in pistol competitions in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. The object of the amendment is to exempt a type of pistol known as a free pistol. I shall describe in not too technical terms what is a free pistol. It is a single-shot pistol. It is cumbersome with a fairly long barrel. It has no magazine. It is capable of single-shot fire only. It is used for deliberate shooting at paper targets at 50 metres and for no other purpose. It is a recognised discipline in international competition. It is one event in the Commonwealth and the Olympic Games. This type of pistol is totally impractical for any other purpose.
One could not carry out a massacre with such a weapon. It cannot be concealed with ease, and it cannot be folded. It is like a precision instrument. It has a stock which has to be tailored for the individual using it. It is hard to imagine it being used to hold up a bank or for any other purpose. It poses no threat to public safety.
If pistols of all types were to be banned, it would have a severe effect on this country in terms of international competitions. The UK will be unable to take part in any pistol competitions even if the people trained overseas, which few competitors capable of this kind of shooting would be able to afford.
We have the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002. No UK competitors will be able to take part in pistol competitions. The same will apply to the Olympic Games. UK competitors will be unable to take part in pistol competitions. We shall be the laughing stock of the world.
When they introduced the legislation, the Government and the previous government were shooting at the wrong targets. Legitimate shooters are all law-abiding citizens. They are an easily identifiable soft target. The Government ignore the vast pool of underground
938
weapons held illegally by criminals. We have read today in the evening newspapers of the Home Secretary announcing an amnesty in Brixton. That is too little and too late. If the Government were to tackle the vast pool of underground weapons held all over the country, they would have the backing of the entire country, including the legitimate shooters.
The following amendments are all consequential. They remove references to small-calibre pistols. If your Lordships agree to this amendment, I shall move them formally. I hope noble Lords will feel able to support the amendment. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, what is important to recognise is that the highly specialised target pistols which are the subject of the amendment are as different as can be from normal .22 semi-automatic pistols or revolvers. Like the single-shot pistols which, as I think is generally known, can be bought anywhere in France by any adult without a permit of any sort, these take a long time to reload. Hence they are very much safer should they, by some unlikely mischance, fall into the wrong hands, than are conventional pistols, as Lord Cullen pointed out. What a tragedy it is that we never had a chance to debate the Cullen Report. So much misery might have been spared us if we had done so.
Unlike the simple French single-shot pistols, these target pistols, the subject of the amendment, are large. They are almost 12 inches long overall, extremely bulky, and almost as difficult to conceal as many a shotgun which is far more dangerous. They are more difficult to conceal than a knife or a mountaineer's axe which, as I pointed out on a earlier occasion, was used to assassinate Leon Trotsky in Mexico City. They are the very last implement that a person with criminal intent would ever choose as a weapon.
If conventional .22 semi-automatic pistols are perhaps only one quarter as dangerous as full-bore ones, then in turn these target pistols are probably one-tenth as dangerous, in practical terms, as conventional .22s. It is bad enough banning ordinary .22 pistols. Over a 50-year period such a ban might save 15 or 16 lives in all, insufficient historically and in terms of precedent to justify such a Draconian ban. We would save far more lives at far less cost to liberty and to the survival prospects of reputable businesses, if owners of baseball bats were required to keep them securely locked up at sports grounds when not in legitimate use for sporting purposes; or if bull bars on motor vehicles were banned.
This lack of a sense of proportion is far greater where these specialised target pistols are concerned. I doubt whether banning them would save as much as one life in 50 years. Have such pistols ever been used in crime? I doubt it. Exemption for this small number would at least enable Britain to continue to compete successfully in some Olympic pistol shooting disciplines. I urge your Lordships to put reason before unthinking emotion. I support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I explained in Committee on 15th July, the Government do not wish

939
to allow exemptions to the general ban on handguns which the Bill seeks to introduce. The amendment seeks to exempt single-shot small-calibre pistols from the general ban on handguns that we propose. We do not believe that it would be justifiable to treat one group of shooters in a special way which is out of step with the general approach taken by the Bill.
The amendment is inconsistent in another way. It seeks to exempt single-shot small-calibre rimfire pistols. But a pistol of exactly the same dimension which is centre fire is already banned by the Act introduced by our predecessors earlier this year. It would be extremely difficult for police officers or anyone else to tell the difference between those types of pistol without specialist assistance. The Bill intends to ban all firearms with barrels less than 30 centimetres long. If this amendment became law, it would be a recipe for confusion.
It is said that those weapons cannot be reloaded promptly. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the Cullen inquiry. The evidence to Lord Cullen from Mr. David Penn, the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council Technical and Research Committee said:
"With reasonable practice a shooter could get the reloading time down to about 5 seconds".
Lord Cullen said:
"I am content to accept that this could be achieved".
Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment. Perhaps I may indicate to your Lordships that there was a similar amendment in another place which was defeated by 333 votes to 123, a majority of 210. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am naturally disappointed by the Minister's reply. He raised the point about, for example, barrel lengths. The minimum barrel length mentioned in the amendment is merely an example. Many pistols have barrels much longer than that. That was merely an example and not intended as a firm statement of barrel length.
Small calibre rimfire is self-evident. It means .22. One of those pistols is totally unlike any other form of pistol of a larger calibre. It needs no expert to distinguish one from the other, even at first sight.
The Government are firmly committed to banning all types of pistol. I am sure that that has been a Cabinet decision. However, I hope that this amendment will be accepted and I ask your Lordships to support it.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Congleton, L.

Haddington, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cuckney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Downshire, M.

Milverton, L.

940

Molloy, L.

Rowallan, L.

Monson, L. [Teller]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Savile, L.

Newall, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nickson, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller]

Palmer, L.

Wharton, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Addington, L.

Chancellor]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Jay of Paddington, B

Barnett, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Borrie, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Calverley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ludford, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McNally, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai.L.

Nelson, E.

Diamond, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Paul, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Plant of Highfield.L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ramsey of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of Saint Budeaux, L.

Grantchester, L.

Rea, L.

Gregson, L.

Richard, L. (Lord Privy Seal]

Grenfell, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hayman, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollick, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty.L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.1 p.m.
Clause 3 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(5) Payments made under a scheme made under subsection (1) above relating to small-calibre pistols shall be dispatched to claimants within 40 days of a valid claim being approved under the terms set out in the Firearms (Amendments Act 1997 Compensation Scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. It appears that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has what I might term the "big battalions" on his side this evening. I shall have to rely on sweet reasonableness to see whether he will agree to what I hope is a very small amendment and one which I believe he should find easy to accept. It does not relate to another exemption for

941
firearms. This is the third attempt that I and my noble friend Lady Blatch have made to try to create some sort of package whereby those receiving compensation for losing their firearms get their compensation within 40 days, or rather within 40 days,
"of a valid claim being approved"
by the relevant government agency.
I appreciate that we have made two previous attempts and that the noble Lord was not satisfied with those amendments partly for drafting reasons, if I may so put it. I hope that this third attempt has a better chance of meeting with his approval. I hope and certainly believe that the amendments are entirely workable because they are based on the provisions of the compensation scheme approved by Parliament under the 1997 Act.
In the first instance, the amendments require a shooter to submit a valid claim to the firearms compensation section (FCS), the Home Office division overseeing the compensation scheme. I hope that that deals with the noble Lord's objection to my earlier amendment when he pointed out that a 40-day deadline from the point of agreed valuation would not be practical in instances where
"there are perfectly innocent errors"
such as,
"incorrect bank details on a claim form"—[Official Report, 16/10/97; col. 585.]
The amendments cover this possibility as the 40-day limit does not begin to operate until a valid claim, without such errors, is submitted.
The amendments also ensure that a valid claim has to be approved by the FCS before the 40-day limit begins. It makes no difference what category the claim falls under. The 1997 compensation scheme states that a flat rate or listed payment under options A and B will be approved by the FCS once a valid claim has been received. Once received, a notification of the claim is sent out by the FCS and it is from this point that the 40-day limit would begin. Valid claims under option C (individual valuations) would not be approved by the FCS until agreement was reached between the latter and the claimant. At that point a payment declaration which says that the claimant agrees with the amount to be paid in settlement of the claim must be signed by the claimant and sent back to the FCS. Again, it is only at this point that the 40 day limit begins.
I do not believe that the amendments are designed to impose unrealistic pressures on civil servants. They would simply ensure that a compensation cheque is sent, or dispatched, to a claimant within 40 days after a valid claim has already been submitted and approved by the firearms compensation section. I believe that it is entirely in line with the Prime Minister's commitment made over a year ago to introduce a requirement on all government departments and agencies to pay their bills within 30 days. We are not even asking for 30 days; we are merely suggesting 40 days as an appropriate limit. It is a very modest little amendment. As I said, we have made three attempts to persuade the Government of its
942
virtue. I hope that the sweetly reasonable way in which I have put the issue before the noble Lord will allow him to accept it on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have made it clear on behalf of the Government at all stages of this Bill that compensation payments for small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment will be made as quickly as possible. I share the sentiment that lies behind the amendment and I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the sweet reason which he demonstrated. However, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment, although I agree that the drafting is significantly improved since it first saw the light of day.
Normally, once a claim is approved for payment by the firearms compensation section, the payment will be sent to the claimant's bank account within a few days of that approval. The problem is that the amendment would impose a statutory requirement to send payments to claimants within 40 days of the claim being approved. There are bound to be some cases where, despite our best efforts or those of the FCS, some difficulty will be encountered in making payments. I give an example of such a case. A claimant may have entered his banking details incorrectly on the claim form, but that does not make the claim invalid. The claim is valid but the details are wrong. In such a case, we would have to delay until the correct information was made available. There is no guarantee that we would receive this information in good time to dispatch the payment within 40 days of the original approval of the claim, which would be valid despite the fact that the bank details might be inaccurate. It is therefore quite possible that in some cases, for reasons beyond our control, we would simply not be able to send a payment to the claimant within a specified time-scale and would thus be in breach of the law. Quite what sanction and consequences legally follow a breach of the law is not plain to me.
There is also the question of consistency. In Committee, many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, forcefully expressed the view that the compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols should be treated in the same way as the scheme for large-calibre handguns and should, therefore, be subject to the same procedure of parliamentary approval as applied to the earlier scheme. Your Lordships will recall that I promised to consider the noble Baroness's point; and. indeed, I did so. In effect, I accepted the thrust of her amendment by introducing a government amendment. We agreed to amend the Bill accordingly, thus achieving consistency between the two schemes.
However, the noble Lord's amendment seeks to have different treatment for the two schemes. There is no similar requirement in relation to the timing of payments made under the compensation scheme for large-calibre handguns, which was the production of the predecessor government. It would be very inconsistent, very strange and, indeed, very odd to impose such a requirement for the small-calibre pistol scheme alone. It would suggest that the owners of small calibre pistols were in some way to be treated differently, perhaps more favourably, than those who owned and were handing in large-calibre handguns under the scheme introduced by the previous

943
government. More than 26,000 small-calibre pistols have been surrendered so far under the ex gratia scheme.
Officials in the FCS are doing their best to process all claims as quickly as possible to ensure that those who have surrendered their firearms and other items because of the earlier legislation this year will not have to wait longer than necessary. There were some initial teething problems in setting up the computer system, but the payment system is now well established and working well. The FCS will tackle claims for small-calibre pistols surrendered under the new scheme with equal vigour.
I should like to make two points by way of fact which may be helpful. I understand that the noble Lord will not press this amendment. Just a few days ago I was able to tell him and your Lordships that £10.5 million had been distributed. In the space of a few days, up until last Friday, the figure had risen from £10.5 million to £16.9 million. Therefore I do not think it is fair to say that officials have been dilatory in this respect.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about persons who had not received their payments within a reasonable time. I said that if I were given any details in writing I would have such cases investigated within the department and that chief officers of police would be contacted. I have not received details of a single case. I do not make that as a forensic point; it implies that the scheme is working well. I refer to the difference between £16.9 million and £10.5 million which has been distributed in a matter of a few days. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I refer again to the lack of details of any late payment and with great respect I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that, as I expected, that reply had the sound of one of those notes with which we are all familiar which has the large word "resist" scribbled over the top of it. The noble Lord resisted and did so well. I think there is very little I can do. I see that we are in the presence of the noble Lord the Chief Whip. To save him a little time I should say that I have no intention of pressing this amendment tonight or for that matter on any other occasion. Therefore he can now send his boys and girls home, should he so wish. The noble Lord may remember that many years ago he was kind to me in allowing me to leave early. I believe that we were discussing the disability living allowance and disability working allowance Bill on Second Reading and the whole matter finished much earlier than we had originally expected and that allowed me to be present at the birth of my only daughter.
I take note of what the noble Lord has had to say on this amendment. I am grateful for the attempt he has made to deal with my points. I am also grateful that he stressed the fact that Home Office officials are working hard to make sure compensation is paid as speedily as possible. For that I thank the noble Lord and his officials within the department. I am sorry that he does not feel
944
able to accept this amendment, or at least to go some way towards accepting it. But I at least take some hope from the Prime Minister's commitment to encourage all agencies to settle their debts within 30 days. I hope that the spirit of that at least will be recognised by the Home Office in trying to deal with this matter and that the noble Lord will make sure that the concerns that have been expressed in this House both at this stage and on earlier occasions are noted and are dealt with. Having said that I have no intention of pressing this amendment, it remains only for me to withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
The Schedule [Repeals]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move, That this Bill do now pass. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his courtesy.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we must say a few words before this Bill passes to the other place. I shall not speak for too long. However, over the past few weeks thousands of decent, law-abiding people have handed in their guns to police stations without any bother and without causing any hindrance to anyone at all. Many people have suffered the consequences of this legislation through clubs closing down, through businesses closing down and through other businesses making losses which they ought not to have made. Those are the consequences of this Bill and the previous Bill. I wish to draw attention to the fact that what we have done is not to hit criminals but to hit decent, law-abiding people who have obeyed the law without let or hindrance, without question and without causing problems to anyone at all.
The guns that are in the hands of criminals are still there. It is guns in the hands of criminals that are the cause of most murders. I remind the House, before we leave this legislation, of the figures for homicides in Scotland before Dunblane and before the firearms legislation was introduced. In Scotland there were 669 homicides between 1990 and 1995; 44 of those—only 44 of those—were committed with firearms. Of those 44, only three were committed with licensed firearms. In other words, out of a total of 669 homicides in Scotland, only .04 per cent. were committed with licensed firearms. Yet, we have had this legislation. How sorry I feel for all the people who have been so disadvantaged by the legislation.
I believe that the public reaction has changed. The public have now understood better what this legislation is all about. Many people believe that it is unjust legislation and that it has penalised the innocent because of the actions of one guilty man. I have said that before

945
and I say it again. I am quite sure that I shall repeat it on many other occasions because I believe that this has been a disgraceful episode in the history of Parliament. It has introduced collective punishment into our law which I thought had gone out with the demise of the Nazi regime in Germany. However, as I said, the public reaction has changed and the Government might yet feel a backlash.
During the passage of this Bill two reasonable amendments were accepted by the House. I sincerely hope that what I am told by the media—that is, that the House of Commons will just throw those amendments out—will prove to be wrong on this occasion and that Members of the House of Commons will read the debates that have taken place in this House and that they will feel some concern not only for the disabled but also for this country's standing in sport abroad and in this country. If the House of Commons has regard to those matters, its Members will accept our amendments. But if they do not do so and the amendments are returned here, I sincerely hope that the House of Lords will have the guts to insist on its amendments.
I shall not weary your Lordships with my views any longer except to say that I believe injustice has been done. I do not believe that this will be the end of the matter. I fear that the Government may want to take things further. On the other hand it is possible to introduce legislation to repeal other legislation. I hope that in due course we might find the opportunity to introduce a Bill to repeal what I believe has been a bad piece of legislation not only on the part of this Government but also on the part of the previous government who started it all off.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his great courtesy and patience towards those of us who oppose the Bill. On an earlier occasion he described us as libertarians. That is accurate enough in my case. However, our opposition to the Bill has nothing to do with the abstract, theoretical libertarianism propounded in university debating societies. Rather, it is motivated by anger at the great cost inflicted, without adequate justification we contend, upon respectable, law abiding citizens. I make no apology for repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. I refer to the emotional cost to those suddenly deprived after 20, 30 or perhaps 40 years of the chance to practise their favourite sport. In particular, the disabled cannot easily switch to rifle shooting, if they can switch at all. I hope that the Commons will think very hard about throwing out that specific amendment of ours.
I refer to the staggering financial cost to dealers and part owners of gun clubs, many of whom face ruination financially. All that is for what statistically is likely to be a very small saving in terms of lives. The Gun Control Network, which seems to have an extraordinary influence over this Government, can see that the saving in lives may be small, but says in effect, "To hell with statistics. We must base our actions on instincts". That is a triumph of emotion over reason, the triumph of the
946
current, hopefully ephemeral, touchy-feely syndrome over calm, measured objectivity. Heaven help us if all future legislation is framed on that basis.
Having said that, I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord for his courtesy.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I underline what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said. The Bill will do nothing to improve public safety. The criminal element will still be quite unaffected. They will be laughing their heads off right now. I shall not be at all surprised to see a continuation of crimes involving firearms held illegally. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind and will urge the police to do all they can to diminish that underground pool of illegally held weapons. They cannot wholly eliminate it, but I hope that that is what they will do.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as someone who arrived, as it were, half-way through the Bill, perhaps I may offer my thanks to my noble friend Lady Blatch who first dealt with the Bill for the Opposition and offered me help and advice during the latter stages. I give my thanks, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who has been eminently courteous the whole way through. He has taken a great deal of trouble over the amendments and to answer the letters that I have sent him as speedily as possible, bearing in mind the necessity of dealing with certain matters between the different stages.
I wish to touch on only one matter. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Two amendments to the Bill were moved by eminent Government Back-Benchers at the Report stage, supported by many on this side of the House. When I spoke to those amendments, I reminded the House that the Labour Party manifesto had promised a free vote on these matters. I very much hope that that will be borne in mind and that the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will take seriously that manifesto commitment and the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave about reading exactly what was said in this place on those amendments. I hope that another place will consider long and hard before it overturns those two amendments. I hope that those in the Whips Office in another place, who offer advice to their colleagues, will be as restrained as they might be in the advice they give to their colleagues bearing in mind the promise that this is a matter which should be left to a free vote; and one which, being left to a free vote, one would hope was properly "unwhipped".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for what noble Lords have said. I reciprocate by saying that I have met with nothing but courtesy from the noble Lord, Lord Henley. This must be the only establishment in the known world where at our age we can still be called boys and girls when we are let off to go home reasonably early.
The background is well known. The noble Lord is right. We fought the last general election on a manifesto commitment for a free vote on whether the ban introduced by the last Government should be extended

947
to all handguns. There was a free vote in another place. There was a majority of 203 in favour of the extension of the ban. I think that that view has been taken into account in the approach taken by your Lordships in speeches in this House.
We have had a full range of views expressed, many of which I do not agree with, and some of which I do agree with. Everyone has approached the matter on the basis that if one disagrees one can do so with courtesy
948
and patience. In a moment or two, I hope that the Bill will start its journey back to another place. Whatever the views of that place about the changes your Lordships have seen fit to make to the Bill, I hope that the Bill can be introduced without delay to allow the ban on small calibre pistols to be in law by the end of the year. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Penal Policy
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider the case for a penal policy based on Christian and humanist values.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by thanking the highly qualified speakers who will take part in this short debate. I must also refer to the debate on matters not far removed from this subject which took place in this House on Thursday last. However, time does not permit me to try to cope in any way with those excellent speeches. I noted that the Minister, with his usual skill, appeared to be reserving himself for tonight's occasion. Certainly he abstained from replying to the severe criticism passed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on Thursday last. We now have this debate.
I remain an almost obsequious supporter of this Government. They have now been in office for six months. During that time I have sought to keep up an average of two visits a week to prisons. With increasing urgency, the question is asked of me, "Will this Government of yours"—the questioners associate the Government with me perhaps more closely than the Government would wish—"be any different from the recent Government? In particular, will the policy be different from that pursued by the recent Government during their last few years?" As we know, in that period a certain Home Secretary whose name I mention too often in this House—I shall not refer to it again—introduced us to the slogan, "Prison works". Whatever may be said in favour or otherwise of that policy, it was new. It was not the policy pursued by the Conservative Ministers in the preceding 14 years.
Will the present Government continue with the policy that prison works? In case I am cut short after my few minutes allowed have elapsed, I wish to be clear that that is the question I put. I do not expect a definite answer tonight because I know that the Minister will wish to give the matter proper consideration. In the prisons these are grave matters. My brilliant colleagues must have time to think them over. That answer is being received with increasing impatience. I am not sure that I shall be welcome if I continue to give it without further proof. At present I am rather like someone who has a beloved son at school. He receives first class reports but the rumour is that the boy is becoming interested in drugs. However, the father refuses to believe it. I refuse to believe that the present Government are pursuing the same policy as the last Government, but I should like some indication that that is not so.
The Question I tabled refers to Christian and humanist values, which may not be quite identical. When I talk of Christian values, I think for illustration of someone like the late Archbishop Temple; and for humanist values I think of my late lamented friend, Lady Wootton, whom I had the honour of introducing into this House. I remember the trouble at the Table when she asked for the alternative form of words, which was not so popular in those days as it is now. They were two great penal reformers—great influences. Archbishop
950
Temple and other Christians would teach us to read yet again Matthew 25: "I was in prison and you came to me. In so much as you did it to the least of these my brethren you did it to me". That is the Christian inspiration. Lady Wootton would not have used those words; their formation was Christian. However, she would have agreed with the Christian leaders, at that time and since, that every human being who comes into this world is of infinite importance, whether or not we add the phrase, "in the sight of God". Any penal policy must take that into consideration, along with the safety of the public.
I ask the House to consider for a moment what an appalling legacy was left to this Government by the previous one. I do not speak in terms hostile to the Conservative administration in this respect over the past 18 years. We have had enlightened Conservative Ministers in this House. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, spoke the other day, and the noble Lords, Lord Hurd and Lord Patten, have joined us recently. It is not a question of party politics. It is a question of a particular philosophy which was introduced in the last years of the recent Government, based on the phrase, "Prison works".
What do we find? In the past four years or so there has been an increase in the prison population of about 50 per cent. The official estimate is that the increase will continue rapidly. Meanwhile, the amount of money allotted to the Prison Service per prisoner has been reduced. The base of the service has been savagely cut. In the past few years the number of probation officers has been reduced by 10 per cent. It is reckoned that in the next two years or so it will be reduced by a further 10 per cent. The legacy is one of increasing numbers in prison, and at the same time steps being taken to economise on those who have to cope with prisoners, either while they are in prison or afterwards, or as an alternative to prison.
One may ask: why should it be officially calculated that the numbers in prison will go up and up? I do not expect a definite answer. The noble Lord is a skilled debater; he knows when to avoid a question that he does not wish to answer. Shortage of time will always come to his rescue. Why should that be the calculation? We were told by the previous administration that during the end of their period in government the number of crimes being committed was coming down. The latest figures that I have seen point in that direction. I do not necessarily take them at face value; however, we have to take what figures are offered to us. The total number of crimes in the past year seems to have come down. The total number of violent crimes, which I agree is highly relevant, has gone up considerably. It cannot therefore be argued that the forecast increase in the prison population in the next few years is due to an increase in crime. If so, I should be surprised if any Minister in the previous Government or this one argues that case. It is due to a more severe sentencing policy.
We may be told by the Government that sentencing is the affair of the courts; it is nothing to do with us. We need to study that answer very carefully. If a more severe sentencing policy is being applied by judges, it is certainly not the result of guidance from here. The

951
Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the other leaders of the judiciary are not responsible for such a policy. We must not associate them with it. I refer to the past; but of course it will happen in future and will be still worse if, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said recently, the new sentencing law comes into force. Taking a broad view, it is due to an atmosphere in which more severe sentences are passed. That atmosphere has come over the past few years from the government of the day. The question is whether this Government will repudiate the attitude that prison works which is producing the increase in the prison population. There is no ducking that question. It can be ducked tonight—though "duck" is an offensive word to use because it implies an act of cowardice, and I know that the Minister is a brave man. It can be postponed tonight, but it cannot be postponed for long. I leave that question in front of the Government. Will they follow the course that the Labour Party has traditionally followed of having some claim to being penal reformers? Will they in the end say, "No, we are going to follow the policy of "prison works"? In the last resort, the Home Secretary has a very heavy responsibility. On the one hand he is responsible to the public, who look to him to deal with crime at a time when there is great anxiety about it. At the same time, he is publicly known to be a Christian socialist. I cannot help reminding him that Christ came seeking to save those who were lost.
7.36 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing the debate. We all recognise his great practical experience in matters pertaining to the Question that he has posed to the Government. It is interesting just how significant this whole field of criminal justice must be, as this Question follows the debate last Thursday to which the noble Earl referred.
I find the wording of the Question interesting. It is a question about values. I accept that Christian values and humanist values are different in regard to penal policy. However, I do not believe that policy arising from Christian and humanist values is likely to differ very much. The reason is that God, when he set out Christian values—biblical values—provided them to be best for human beings. Therefore the principles arising from the Bible are likely to be fairly similar to those arising from humanists. I shall take the debate largely along the lines of the policy that I believe the Bible sets out.
I should like to begin by reading a summary of volume 6, No. 1, of the Cambridge paper that was published in March this year. It sets out clearly where my own views are coming from. It states:
"The moral foundation of punishment is a problematic issue which has prompted several competing views. A biblical perspective is anchored in the principle of retribution: punishment is deserved in proportion to the seriousness of an offence. However, the biblical endorsement of retribution is qualified and carefully nuanced. The fundamental aim is not to inflict suffering on offenders but to reassert the existence of the moral order that governs human life. That moral order emphasises the connections between justice. right relationships and seeking after community wellbeing. For this reason, punishment should normally aim both at making reparation to victims and restoring offenders into the community".
952
Punishment is important not because of suffering to the offender but to reassert the broken moral order lying behind the law. It is the final two questions arising from my quotation upon which I wish to comment.
Justice needs to be sought between the offender and the victim: I believe that that is a biblical principle. There is much in the Bible and Christian thought on the question of repentance by an offender. There are several commands in the Old Testament for reparation or restitution to the victim. The Bible often requires repayment of double or more for a theft.
I am concerned that today the offender very often does not understand the impact of his crime on his victim. It is important that the penal system should do what it can to make the offender realise what his or her victim feels and provide an opportunity, when agreeable to all parties concerned, for the offender to meet the victim. I quote from The Times of 18th October:
"Young criminals who are forced to face their victims and hear the harm they cause are far less likely to reoffend, a pilot scheme has shown.
After an 18-month trial, Thames Valley Police said that only 12 petty criminals had committed new crimes out of 350 who took part. Normally about 100 are likely to reoffend".
I have frequently expressed concern in your Lordships' House about the very high rate of reoffending. This scheme for bringing an offender face to face with the victim seems to have dealt a blow to the reoffending rate. Instead of 100, only 12 have reoffended. That gives me great encouragement. Perhaps I may conclude on this point with a further quotation from The Times:
"offenders take part in a conference with the police and their families and meet the victim. Thames Valley Police found that many of the young criminals apologised and made reparation. In some cases they broke down in tears".
In this way I believe the penal system is working, in reducing the reoffending rate and reforming the offender.
The second point I wish to mention concerns reintegrating offenders into the community. This is aimed at reducing a rate of reoffending which is far too high. In the Old Testament punishment did not usually involve severing links between family and community. Very little imprisonment is mentioned; that is not the usual punishment. Clearly we need prisons, because we need to protect the public. That is a very important part of the penal system. Perhaps I may again quote from the Cambridge paper:
"Imprisonment can lead to unmerited hardship for dependants, place great stress on family relationships, result in permanent job loss and multiply contacts in the criminal world".
I believe that those four results flow from imprisonment. We must have imprisonment to protect the public but I do not think it is the best way of dealing with offenders.
I have spoken before on the issue of community service. I am always grieved that the rate of reoffending by those who have received community orders seems to be very similar to that by those who are imprisoned. I believe that we need to do much more exploration in relation to community service.

953
Ideally, prison should be seen as a pre-release centre. People should be placed in a prison as near to their home as possible—"community prisons" I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, called them. This has the great benefit that family can visit more frequently; there can be more meaningful visits from the local community; and programmes for reintegration into the community can be worked out from both sides, from both the prison and the local community. I believe that reintegration into the community stems from biblical values.
Education, about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, spoke in last Thursday's debate, is important. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether the amount of education in prisons, which was reduced last year, can be increased. Certainly the wider field of education is of help in penal policy, but education in prisons is an important point, too.
I hope that service in the community can be further explored with a view to reducing the high rate of reoffending. I believe that, if we get it right, that should happen, for the reasons I gave about its value.
With these points in mind, I hope that a biblical penal policy can lead to further improvement in the country generally.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in what I say this evening I shall in some ways reinforce and respond to the very thoughtful observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. Before I come to that, perhaps I may say that it is always a privilege for us in this House to hear my noble friend Lord Longford who brings to this incredibly complex, challenging and emotionally highly charged area of public policy a concern for what society should strive to be rather than settling for managing society for what it is. I believe that is the challenge we all have to face in political life: we must, of course, govern well but we must never settle for political technocracy in handling affairs as they are as an end in themselves. We must always be thinking of how society could be better and how we can move towards that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, dwelt on the issue of reoffending. He also dwelt powerfully on the issue of enabling those who commit crime to understand the impact on those affected. The House should ponder those two important points very carefully.
In enabling the criminal—perhaps the young offender particularly—to understand the significance and consequences of the crime in which he has been involved, the approach to the time which that offender may spend in prison or some other institution is of vital significance.
As I said in a previous debate, I am privileged to be president of the YMCA in England. That organisation is doing some very interesting work with young offenders. We find, in the context of that work, that the reoffending rate is being significantly reduced. It is worth looking at why that is happening. First, tremendous emphasis is put within the institution on enabling young people to discover their own personality
954
and their own personal significance, and to begin thinking of themselves as someone who could be respected. Out of that personality development can more easily flow a significance of the consequences of the social action in which that person may have been involved.
The other day I heard a very powerful story which deeply affected me. I was talking with a retired chief constable who happens to have been very much involved in the work in young offenders' institutions. He told me of speaking with a young man who was about to be released. While talking about his forthcoming release, the young man began to cry. The chief constable asked him, "Why are you crying? Why are you weeping at this good thing. You are about to be released. What is making you react in this way?" The young man said, "Because this is the first place in my life where I have found anybody who cared, anybody who tried to make relationships with me or anybody who took any sense of responsibility towards me, and to which I find myself responding." That seems to me to have a powerful message for us in society as a whole.
But it also emphasises the importance of the quality of the work within the prison or institution. I worry about the pressure that is now being put, for example, on the educational programmes and work designed to achieve rehabilitation. It seems to me that that is the very last thing that should be under pressure. To put it no higher, the economic cost—not just the human cost—of neglecting rehabilitation and the important work on the personality and personality development of people who find themselves in such a situation can be immensely high. To cut back on that can be a false economy when one considers the consequences that may follow.
There is one other point I want to make in supporting my noble friend who has introduced this subject tonight. I recall that in a recent debate the Minister, whom I deeply respect, was at great pains to emphasise that we should not approach this subject as a party political issue because it is not party political. It cuts across party political divides, challenges us all and should not be demeaned by being looked at in that way. I agree. I hope however that he agrees with me that it is central to our whole consideration of value systems. If we live in a society in which the premium in social conduct seems to be put on succeeding on an individualistic basis without too much worry about the consequences of self-aggrandizement, although one may reach the pinnacle of society and become a hero in that kind of society, it undermines one's authority in appealing to those who are faced with all the consequences of deprivation, hardship, bad schooling and very little opportunity. It undermines one's authority in appealing to those people if one says that the hallmark of a decent society is unbridled individualism.
If we are effectively to approach the issue of penal policy strategically, we have to relate it to the whole issue of our social value system. How far do we take seriously our responsibilities to each other and recognise that we can only build a decent society in the realms of environment, education, health and much of social

955
policy, by working together rather than simply by looking after our own individual, perhaps narrow, family needs?
In that sense, although this is not a party political issue—I agree with my noble friend—it is important to recognise that it is central to what we believe is better in the prospect for society and what could be in society as distinct from simply what is in society. So I thank my noble friend yet again. We have to look not only at the whole issue of the pressures on our inner city schools, the exclusions and the pressure to succeed in those schools which leads to the difficult youngsters being excluded and thereby, perhaps, beginning to go down the road towards escalating criminal activity, but also at how one includes those young people in the system rather than excluding them. All those things come together.
In making those wider observations I hope that we remember also that in a sensitive and decent society we must not lose sight of the victim. Sometimes the pressures on the victim and the relatives and families of the victim are underestimated in our society. It may be treated sensationally, but the real psychological trauma which people encounter is, I believe, sometimes underrated. We need to do a great deal more in society to work on that. If we do not, it compounds prejudice and makes it more difficult to break out of the vicious circle of prejudice and incapability of taking a more enlightened and positive approach.
We also need to take very seriously the incredible pressure put on those who handle penal policy on our behalf in society, such as prison officers, those working in young offenders' institutions and the rest. It is easy for us to take strategic policy attitudes. But we must consider the sheer pressure, grind and demand made on ordinary men and women in the front line who are often very decent people trying to do the best job that they can. That cannot be underestimated. Therefore, we need to take our responsibilities in that quarter extremely seriously as well.
7.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Earl not only for this debate but for his deep and long commitment to this crucially important cause.
If people are a danger to others, their freedom to do harm must be curtailed. They need to be kept in a secure place. So it is part of a Christian and humane penal policy that society as a whole has to be protected.
But are all those at present contained in prison a danger to others? The prison population has risen by over 50 per cent. since 1992. That increase is simply due to harsher sentencing. There has been no significant rise in the number of offenders appearing before the courts; rather, the climate of opinion has been created which favours sending more people to prison for longer periods. Overall, in all courts the proportion of offenders sentenced to custody rose from 16 per cent. in 1992 to 23 per cent. in 1996. In fact, only one in four of those sent to prison had committed offences involving violence, sex, robbery or drugs. Such numbers in prison
956
are not felt necessary elsewhere. We place more people behind bars than any other nation in Western Europe. Out of 100,000 people, we have 120 behind bars, France has 89, Germany has 84 and Sweden has only 65. Yet despite all that, we are not a nation that feels safer or more law abiding.
Containment is not, in principle, contrary to a Christian and humane penal system; nor is punishment. But punishment is not revenge. Punishment means bringing home to an offender the consequences of his actions, so that he experiences for himself something of the harm that he has done to others. But how is that best done? Containing people in prison deprives them of their liberty and helps to instil in people a sense that choices have consequences and wrong choices have harmful consequences. But, in itself, it can hardly bring home to the prisoner the hurt that he has inflicted on others. That is why one of the most promising developments recently has been the move to confront criminals with their victims, as part of the whole process of restorative justice, helping the criminal to be aware of what he has done and in some way to begin to make amends for it. I agree with every word of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, when he stressed that.
So much crime is an unthinking, short-sighted failure of the imagination, a failure to see that the victims are flesh and blood who hurt and suffer. I very much hope that the move to bring home to a criminal some recognition of the damage that he has inflicted will be developed in sensitive but purposeful ways.
Again, an essential aspect of the Christian and humane penal policy is deterrence; that is, deterring the convicted criminal and others from perpetrating such crimes in the future. But it is well known that prison itself is a great deal less effective in that regard than actually being caught and convicted. What deters is the certainty that one will be apprehended and tried. Unfortunately there is little certainty at the moment about that. Reputable research indicates that out of every 100 offences committed, only 41 are reported to the police. Of the 41 that are reported, few lead to a criminal being apprehended and sentenced. So in the end only four out of every 100 offences committed lead to an outcome through the criminal justice system.
It is a mistake to think that prison itself will deter. Because the public feels insecure with the high crime rate, people understandably call for more and longer sentences. But people need to be educated to see that what is really needed is a more certain system of apprehending and convicting criminals. That is what will deter.
No less important for a Christian and humane penal system is the hope, however faint in the short term, that people can be changed; that relationships can be restored and that a person can mature. That is fundamental from a Christian viewpoint. In Christ, all human beings are potentially redeemable; that is, they can grow into the person God intended them to be, reflecting his own light and love.
Unfortunately, prisons are now much less able to focus on that aspect than once they were. More people are being sent to prison for longer periods and prisons

957
are therefore overcrowded. In July 1997 11,000 prisoners were held two to a cell. At the same time, due to cuts in prison budgets, 1,100 prison staff took early retirement this year. Because of that there have been cuts in prison education and in time spent out of the cell in constructive activity.
Between 1995 and 1997 the time spent on education fell by 71 per cent. in prisons and young offender institutions. Again, in 1994 a prisoner could spend 26.2 hours each week in constructive activity; in 1996 it was down to 23.8 hours. There is less money to pay for education and constructive activity and fewer officers to oversee that work.
All that sets at risk the enormous gains made by the Prison Service in recent decades in terms of education, group therapy work, better living conditions and a general concern for rehabilitation. One aspect of that is the way that drug offenders are treated. They may well be committing more than one-fifth of all thefts and burglaries in this country. There needs to be a shift towards court order treatment and rehabilitation. At present two-thirds of government spending on drugs goes into enforcement and controls and only one-third into prevention, education and treatment. Yet current research into drug treatment programmes has shown that they produce large and rapid reductions in illegal drug use and related criminal activity.
It is good that the Government are advocating more court order drug treatment and it has been announced that there will be legislation for a new "treatment and testing order". There needs to be significant developments along those lines for the simple fact is that drug dependency leads inexorably to criminal activity. Simply locking drug-dependent criminals in prison bypasses the fundamental challenge which is to get such people off drugs.
All that points to the fundamental imperative of reducing the prison population. If people are in prison when they could be punished some other way because they are no significant threat to the community, then their imprisonment is inhumane and unchristian. If too many people are in prison, it makes it less likely that those who have to be in prison will receive the educational and rehabilitation programmes that they so desperately need.
A number of suggestions have been put forward as to how the prison population may be reduced without putting the general public more at risk. One important suggestion is that the Government should move urgently to lay down tighter statutory and non-statutory restrictions on the lengths of remands in custody. On any one day over 4,000 untried prisoners have been awaiting trial for over three months. An overall three-month time limit on custodial remands, together with accompanying limits on the various stages of the pre-trial process, could potentially have a substantial impact on the daily prison population.
The Government made a manifesto commitment to bring remand delays down to national targets. Again, we must look as a matter of urgency for improvement in that sphere. It is certainly a cause which is strongly supported by prison chaplains.
958
Important suggestions have also been made in relation to custody for young offenders—a specific concern of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—and those prisoners with young children. As he said, the high rate of imprisonment,
"reflects wide injustice to many prisoners and their families. Remand prisoners frequently lose their jobs and even their homes and get behind with the rent. Family relationships are damaged, sometimes irretrievably".
Another concern of the Church is the increasing use of prison for women. The female population in prison has risen twice as fast as the male population, from 1,353 prisoners at the end of 1992 to 2,799 last August. Around half the women in prison have dependent children. Most of them are non-violent offenders and many have committed minor offences. It is difficult to see how imprisoning them can be the best way of changing their behaviour and bringing about a right relationship both within their own family and with the wider society.
We must say that despite the good will and professional efforts of so many in the penal system—I have been privileged to meet some wonderful governors and prison staff—the present criminal justice system cannot be described as either fully humane or Christian. If we look carefully at why we need containment, what constitutes punishment, how we can best deter and what we need in order to change people's behaviour, we see that there is a massive imperative to find an alternative to prison; to make prison itself a context in which people can be enabled to face up to the harm that they have done to others and where they can be helped to change their behaviour. From a Christian point of view we must never lose hope of that possibility.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Longford for introducing this short debate and echo the tributes that have been paid to him by other noble Lords this evening.
The debate in the terms in which he asked his Question concentrates on values. Values are extremely important when thinking about penal policy, for two reasons. First, it is at least arguable that some of the oscillations that we have seen in penal policy have been the result of not having a clear view as to what punishment is for. Any answer to that—whether it is for retribution, restitution, deterrence, rehabilitation or, more likely, a mixture—will need to confront quite deep questions in relation to moral values. We therefore need a greater degree of clarity as to what punishment is for.
Secondly, if we do not root our penal system in ethical values it will be buffeted about by political expediency. In addition, citizens who can discuss penal issues, imprisonment and so forth in terms of morality will find the field dominated by "experts". I do not doubt that there are experts in criminology, psychology and so forth; but they are not and cannot be experts in the purpose of punishment. That is ultimately a moral and ethical matter.

959
I am worried that if we do not stress the moral dimensions of punishment the field will be taken over by various kinds of experts and our criminal justice penal system will become more remote from how ordinary people think and feel about it. The problem is that if those points are accepted—that morality is of vital importance when thinking about penal policy—how will we confront those ethical issues? We are often told that we live in a morally pluralistic society and can expect little in the way of moral agreement from people who have all sorts of faiths or indeed no faith at all. We cannot reason about the moral basis of punishment in an ethical vacuum—and we live in such a vacuum.
My noble friend suggested in the terms of his Question to Her Majesty's Government that there could be some kind of overlap between the Judaeo/Christian ethical tradition and the secular/humanistic tradition, though I hope that that applies to other religions also. If there is an overlap, it is to be found as other noble Lords said in the principle of respect for persons; that there are clear moral limits which should constrain how we deal with people, including those who have broken the law. The Christian roots of this doctrine, as the right reverend Prelate said, are to be found in the idea that human beings are created in the image of God, the secular idea rooted in the notion that human beings have qualities and capacities which are denied to other sorts of animals, not least the capacity for choosing between right and wrong. These distinctive human qualities are to be respected among those who have offended against the law; that is to say, respect for persons and some idea of human dignity seems to be the value that could be overlapping between both religious and humanistic approaches to this issue.
If that is correct, and some idea of human dignity and human respect is part of the overlap between Christian and non-Christian values, what might such a principle imply in relation to penal policy? The first and most important point is that those who have broken the law should be regarded as being properly responsible for their actions. It would be a very odd view of human dignity as the basis of human respect which did not count individuals as human agents capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of their actions. I say that because some approaches to penal policy would see the central concern of such policy in wholly therapeutic terms. I am not denying the relevance of a therapeutic approach in penal policy, but it can be overdone in so far as such an approach can displace the centrality of individual responsibility. If we see criminal behaviour as being a result of a pathological personality or as symptoms of some kind of mental pathology, there is a danger that we actually displace the idea of human responsibility. As I have already said, that sits rather ill with the notion of human dignity. We have to keep both of those in some kind of balance. The first thing that follows from the idea of human dignity is the centrality of the importance of human responsibility for one's own actions.
It also seems to me that the principle of respect would put quite clear limits on the role of deterrence in thinking about punishment. After all, the idea of
960
punishment as deterrence is justified by the fact that we are prepared to inflict punishment on an individual for the sake of other individuals and for the sake of social welfare. No doubt that is an important element of punishment, but the idea of respecting people involves the notion of not treating people just as means to the ends and purposes of other people. Therefore, if we take the idea of respect seriously, there must be limits on the use of the idea of deterrence in the justification of punishment and at the very least a deterrent approach to punishment must be much less discretionary than it might otherwise seem to be. If we are to respect people, we should treat like cases in like manner.
From this value certain restrictions would flow on the notion of deterrence. We certainly ought to restrict the opportunity for passing exemplary or quirky kinds of sentences because the pressure to deter a particular kind of crime in a particular place by passing a sentence on a particular individual seems so strong. That is unjust and incompatible with the principle of respect.
If you take the principle of respect seriously, what kind of view of punishment might it justify? It justifies much more the idea of punishment as restitution, reparation and retribution. The idea of retribution has not had a good press over recent years because it seemed to be inhumane and uncivilised. That is a fundamental mistake. The central theme of retribution, if one looks at the nature of retributive thinkers in the penal context, is that responsibility is both a necessary and sufficient condition of punishment—that it is because someone is responsible and guilty that he should be punished. Questions of rehabilitation and questions of deterrence are secondary to the fact of responsibility and forcing people to face up to the responsibility for and consequences of their own actions.
That is what retribution classically means in the Western philosophical and religious tradition. It has nothing to do with vengeance. It is quite different from vengeance. The differences are quite marked. Retribution or restitution implies the principle of proportionality, that the reparation to be made should be proportionate in some sense to the crime. There is an internal limit on the reparation to be made. Vengeance is or can be unlimited. Secondly, retribution is exacted in an impersonal way. Vengeance is always personalised. Vengeance may involve taking pleasure in the pain the person feels. That is not true of retribution, which is impersonal. Reparation is general and universal in a way that vengeance is not. It embodies a commitment to the idea that like cases should be treated in like manner. That is not true of personalised vengeance. Vengeance and reparation are fundamentally different. It does not help clarity over our understanding of what punishment is for to assume without further argument that reparation and retribution are necessarily the same thing as vengeance.
My own view is that the principle of respect, which is this overlapping moral value—perhaps one of the few we have in society across different moral traditions—justifies the major principle of punishment in terms of reparation and restitution and that the role of deterrence

961
and rehabilitation is important and indispensable but nevertheless secondary in terms of the nature of what justifies punishment.
The final point I would make—it very much echoes the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the right reverend Prelate—is that if we are to have a criminal justice system that embodies some principle of respect, within prison the regime should be one that encourages respect both in terms of building up a sense of responsibility for actions on the part of the inmate and also in terms of the way in which the inmate is dealt with. When I first came to the House the topic of the day was the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, following the Strangeways not. The regime that he laid down and argued for is the one we should go for and the one that would embody this principle of respect in prison regimes more than any other argument I have heard in the House over the past five years.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am sure that over the years there must have been a number of occasions when a Private Secretary has gone into his Minister and said, "Minister, we have yet another Unstarred Question and it is also from Lord Longford", because the noble Earl has been nothing if not persistent over the issues we are discussing today. I am sure the whole House will agree with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said when he referred to the noble Earl's deep and long commitment. We have all gained immeasurably from that as we have from this opportunity to talk about some of these issues again today.
It is also true of the noble Earl, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, that he is bipartisan and even-handed in his criticism. We shall find him as vigilant a hawk in following the behaviour of his own Government as he was a very fierce critic of what was done by Michael Howard in particular under the previous regime.
He is quite right to raise these issues on every possible occasion. We have already been struck by the number of occasions this evening when there have been references to the prison population. I make no excuse for making yet another one and making a reference to some different figures.
At the time of the debate on the gracious Speech on 19th May, there were 60,431 men and women in prison. Last Friday the figure was 63,174—an increase of nearly 3,000 in a little over five months. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred earlier in the year to the possibility that the prison population would grow to a figure of 68,400 by March 1999. That would be 2,600 more than the previous projection.
I do not necessarily expect a reply this evening, but at a later date. Does he still believe that, given the size of the increase in the past five months, that it is still realistic to talk of a prison population of 68,400 in March 1999? I confess that if matters proceed as they are now, I believe that there is a real possibility that the figure will be over 70,000.
962
In the course of the debate on the Address, I said that I hoped it would be a target of the Home Secretary to reduce the prison population by 50,000 by the end of this Parliament. Very wisely, he has made no forecast to date. But the time is coming when he must demonstrate to the House and to the public that the present movement, which is all in the opposite direction, is going to be reversed. It is very important indeed that a major target for the present Home Secretary is to reduce the prison population.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was very critical—as he was this evening—of Michael Howard's formula that prison works. The truth is that sometimes it does, but more often it does not. It only works in the positive and obvious sense that it takes criminals off the streets for a while. But having been taken off the streets once, if the criminals continue to offend, then more harm may have been done by putting them in custody in the first place. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Plant, about the nature of deterrence. Prison is only justifiable if it is an effective deterrent first; and, secondly, if it is also an effective way of turning criminals into honest citizens. That is why the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, about re-offending and reintegrating former prisoners into the community are very important indeed.
It ought to be possible that prisoners are given opportunities that will enable them to take their place in the community thereafter. Given the decline in education and other facilities and the amount of overcrowding in our prisons, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred and the extraordinarily high figure of 11,000 prisoners held in cells designed for one person, I cannot believe that the present state of the prisons will result in any form of redemption for those in them.
There was a further report today from the Howard League for Penal Reform which for so many years has been the champion for those who want to improve our penal system. It refers in particular to the number of girls aged between 15 and 17 years of age held in breach of the United Nations convention and who are not persistent offenders. It said that the inquiry which had been conducted by the league showed that the number of girls being held in prison had more than trebled between 1992 and 1996. The report states that girls are held in adult gaols alongside older women and in breach of the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we know, it states that the gaols are overcrowded and not equipped to deal with the complex problems of teenage girls. The regimes are barely rehabilitative, with no special regime for the under-18s, which is further confirmation of what has been said in your Lordships' House tonight. The report states that hard drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine are easily available and that girls are at risk of emotional bullying, physical assault and self-harm. It is an appalling story for a civilised society which for many years did much of which it could be proud in order to improve the circumstances of those held in custody.
In the criticisms made of the previous Home Secretary the noble Earl, Lord Longford, often said—I certainly agreed with him and said it myself—that the

963
previous Home Secretary was motivated mainly by good opinions within his own party. I very much hope that the verdict on the present Home Secretary will not eventually be that he was principally motivated by fear of the tabloid press saying that he was soft on crime.
I understand, as I believe do all Members of this House, his deep concern, which I believe to be wholly genuine, about the problems on the housing estates and crime among younger people, particularly young children. But these are circumstances in which it is necessary to keep a cool head and to ask whether punishment is the relevant answer, and if it is, what form it should take.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in last Thursday's debate, which I am very sorry I was unable to attend, said that unless we get the confidence of the public, which means all sections of it, including the media and victims, we shall get nowhere. I agree if that is a statement for the longer term, meaning four or five years. But the Government must seek to educate public opinion and explain and argue the case and not simply follow what may be common parlance in the saloon bars. The previous government totally failed to seek to lead opinion except in the direction that they had already chosen to take. This Government have a very serious obligation to do something better.
The present Home Secretary said, I believe in the statement he made on 30th July in another place, that his overriding priority was to secure the safety of the public. That has rather become his mantra. But how? It is not necessarily by locking people up. I remind the Home Secretary of the memorable aphorism of the Prime Minister about crime. He referred to the need to deal with crime and the causes of crime. I shall be certainly very happy to judge this Government, when the time comes, by the extent to which they have genuinely acted both on crime and the causes of crime.
It cannot simply be a matter of blaming the families of delinquent children, expecting them to accept responsibility beyond their capacity to do so. Those who become criminals and those who are the parents of those who become criminals are what they are partly by the accident of birth; partly by the damage done to them in childhood; partly by the social and psychological consequences of events that they could not avoid; partly by deep changes in our society; and partly, it has to be said, by unemployment, poverty and the widening gap between rich and poor. These are matters which must be tackled if we are ever to find a solution to the very important questions which the noble Earl has raised tonight.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I have considerable experience and knowledge of the number of Unstarred Questions which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has put down over the years, obviously not just on home affairs matters but on many other subjects. I remember some years ago the noble Earl putting down an Unstarred Question on
964
universities and polytechnics, as they then were, and the desirability of allowing the latter to change their title to the former. I also remember with some personal feeling that I was put in as the hapless Whip to respond to the noble Earl on that occasion. It was not long after that that he achieved exactly what he desired because the government changed their mind and the polytechnics were allowed to begin calling themselves universities.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that personal achievement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it was nothing to do with me, but with the coincidence of time.
I put that example forward merely as a warning to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who will no doubt be answering many more such Unstarred Questions, of what he will have to expect over the coming years. Indeed, the noble Lord is already experienced in these matters. We had a similar debate only last Thursday when he was asked, following the Statement made on 30th July in another place, about Her Majesty's Government's proposals for the criminal justice system in England and Wales. On that occasion, my noble friend Lady Anelay spoke from these Benches; tonight it is my turn. One hopes that the noble Lord's simple answer to the Question is that, broadly speaking and bearing in mind our Christian traditions, our penal policy, which is a major part of our criminal justice system, is broadly based on Christian and, dare I say it, humanist values. I speak with less qualification with regard to the latter. I believe that that was true of the basis of the policies that we pursued when we were in government until 1st May and I trust that it will be true of the values pursued by the current Government.
I turn now to the question of finding a precise definition of a "Christian" penal policy. I say "Christian" rather than "humanist" because I do not precisely know what a "humanist" penal policy might comprise. Speaking as a Christian, it is clear that the definition of such a policy might vary considerably from speaker to speaker. I am grateful that we have heard tonight from such a range of different speakers, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
I think that the noble Earl would agree that there are certain absolute values—values that do not change over the years, to which I hope that we remain constant and to which we hope that our children will remain constant, just as our fathers and their forefathers were constant to them. However, I am sure that the noble Earl would be the first to agree that it is undeniable that views have changed over the centuries and that what were regarded as acceptable punishments in one era—and sometimes even seen as good, honest, Christian punishments, even being accepted by the Church—have now been abandoned because we have changed our minds about what is acceptable. I remind the right reverend Prelate that we no longer burn heretics. I am sure that he is well aware of that fact and considers it to be a move in the right direction. Indeed, we no longer burn witches although I understand that that was not so much a matter of punishment as an action in pursuit of evidence and

965
that if the "witch" survived the drowning, she would be burned. We have moved on from the stocks, whipping and branding and, dare I say this from these Benches, we have moved on from hanging for virtually every crime except, as I understand it, for burning the Queen's dockyards. All of those punishments have gone and I think that there is genuine consensus that most of them should have gone. I understand, however, that that is not always necessarily true with regard to hanging and capital punishment and that many people in this country and beyond hold other views, but tonight is not the occasion to embark on a debate about capital punishment. I merely make the point in order to outline the fact that our views about what is acceptable change from era to era.
I should now like to comment on one or two of the points that have been made. I shall try to keep my remarks fairly short so that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has sufficient time to respond. First, the noble Earl attacked the concept that "prison works". He referred to the vast increase in the numbers held in prison, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I accept that there has been an increase and that it is largely because many now go to prison for longer periods. I also accept that over the years there has been a steady rise in the number of crimes being committed—that is, until four or five years ago when we began to see a decline in the number of recorded crimes. One must ask whether the fact that some people stay in prison longer is making a difference to the crime figures because they are unable to commit crimes by virtue of being locked up.
The second point to which I should like briefly to refer was addressed first by my noble friend Lord Brentford and then by the right reverend Prelate. I refer to the idea that the offender often does not realise the effect of his crime on the victim. My noble friend referred to a report which I also saw in The Times about two weeks ago. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be aware of it. It referred to a pilot scheme in the Thames Valley. His right honourable friend has made much of its effects. All that I have seen so far is that report in The Times and I am sure that like myself my noble friend Lord Brentford and others would like to hear a great deal more about it. Exactly what sort of offenders are involved? What sort of offences were committed? How does the scheme work? In what way are the victims being involved? Bearing in mind the time constraints on the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I do not expect to be given a detailed answer tonight—I see the noble Lord nodding his head in some relief—but I ask him, if possible, to make available to us a paper from his officials about exactly what effect the scheme has had. Many of us would like to know more about it.
My third point relates to the question of drugs, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. He made the simple point that dependency on drugs leads to crime. I accept that. The right reverend Prelate said that he would like to see a greater move away from enforcement and towards education. I would welcome that. We have heard that there is to be a new drugs
966
co-ordinator who, for some odd reason and absorbing something from across the Atlantic, is to be called the "drugs czar". However, the messages coming out of the Government are distinctly confused at the moment and the matter needs to be addressed. We have heard that, on the one hand, the Government want to appoint the so-called "drugs czar" to deal with the problem, but at the same time—this is deeply to be regretted—we have heard that leading role models for young people, people who have positively advocated the use of drugs, have still been invited to receptions at No. 10. The appointment of a drugs czar, on the one hand, and the issuing of such invitations, on the other hand, send out a very mixed message to a great many people. I believe that perhaps the Prime Minister himself should address that point.
I should now like to return briefly to some of the issues relating to penal policy which were addressed by my noble friend Lady Anelay last Thursday. Obviously, we are grateful that the Government have agreed to implement part of the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of our Crime (Sentences) Act, particularly for third-time serious sexual and violent criminals and those convicted of drug trafficking. We would also like to see some movement on third-time domestic burglars. I suppose that we live in hope. Nevertheless, can the noble Lord address my noble friend's direct questions and tell us whether the Government will implement those proposals when the resources are available and when he thinks that that will be?
Secondly, I was left in some degree of confusion by some of the noble Lord's responses last week. I wonder whether he can clear up that confusion following his attempts to deal with my noble friend's question relating to 12 year-olds who can be locked up on remand awaiting trial for offences for which, if found guilty, they cannot then serve a period in custody. What is the answer to that? I was confused by the Minister's responses, which started at col. 872 of last Thursday's Hansard, and would be grateful for some light in that area. Again, I should be more than happy if the noble Lord were to write to me on that issue.
In due course we are to have a major crime and disorder Bill. I give the noble Lord due assurance that this House will examine the Bill in great detail. I imagine that when the Bill goes through this House the Benches on all sides will be considerably fuller than they are tonight. I look forward to that examination.
I end by putting to the noble Lord a question that I am not sure he can answer. One hears that that Bill is likely to be introduced some time in November. Is the noble Lord aware at this stage whether it will be introduced first in this House or whether it will start its passage in another place?
8.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for this debate. He is right to question and continually review the basis of our policies. I believe that the Government's policies as they develop are firmly rooted in the established deep values, of whatever origin, that lie at the heart of a civilized

967
society, identified, in words with which I entirely agree, by my noble friend Lord Judd. Crime is not the infringement of impersonal law. It is an offence against other individuals and the community at large. Often it blights communities and wrecks lives. We believe that to look to the criminal justice system to protect and nurture our fellow human beings and their quality of life is of itself a moral basis for penal policy.
My noble friend Lord Judd and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford spoke of values. We believe that fairness is one of the most important. We therefore intend to continue to develop monitoring arrangements across the penal system to ensure that there is no discrimination on any improper grounds. Furthermore, we intend to publish information to ensure that the system is seen to be fair. No more will there be any secret statistics. In December we intend to publish the results of the first year of ethnic monitoring of police activity. It is extremely important that the material be gathered and just as important that it be published.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is quite right. As of last Friday there were 63,174 people in prison, which is the highest figure recorded. The noble Lord asked me about projections for the coming year. Those projections are being constantly re-examined and assessed. I have no more definite figure than that, but as soon as it becomes available I shall write to the noble Lord.
Simply to try to tackle crime and to treat people on the same basis of fairness is not enough. We are eager to defend the rights to freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, to a fair trial and not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Our penal policy is not one solely of retribution. A question was raised about the determination of the Home Secretary. It is he who has played such a significant part in bringing forward the White Paper on the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the drafting of the Bill which has recently had its First Reading in your Lordships' House. The Home Secretary is determined to do what he believes to be right, which does not include bowing to the temporary pressure of any particular interest group. I believe that he has the capacity and ability to be a great Home Secretary.
My noble friend Lord Longford, in his gentle way, invited me not to duck or postpone. I hope therefore to follow his injunction. I believe that of all noble Lords he is entitled to have stated unambiguously in his presence that the Government's strategy is not based solely on prison. There will be some for whom prison is the only appropriate response. Prison is an expensive form of punishment that may not be the best or most effective option for less serious offenders whose crimes can be adequately punished by fines, community penalties or other alternatives. We want to give the courts the opportunity of imposing a range of tough community punishments that are not only effective but in which both they and the public generally can have confidence. We want penalties that work in terms of both reducing reoffending and reassuring the public.
968
For some people, prison is inevitable. However, when its use is required it should not be wholly punitive and negative. We want to provide constructive regimes for prisoners to ensure that they confront their offending behaviour. I should like to slot in at this point my response to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. As soon as the full report is to hand I shall send it to him and other noble Lords who have expressed interest in this matter. I shall return to that in a moment in a rather fuller form.
We want to determine whether or not prison can offer constructive regimes. The Prison Service—I pay tribute to those who work in it—has enormous pressures. The current level of overcrowding undoubtedly reduces the quality of prison regimes. We have provided another £43 million for this year and next. I recognise that that is only a first step. We have national programmes to determine whether or not reoffending can be reduced. The sex offender treatment programme compels the relevant offender to recognise that his behaviour is wrong and teaches techniques to control relapse back into offending. The cognitive skills programme deals with the self-centred and impulsive way in which offenders make decisions. It attempts to teach them skills that they lack. We are developing a third programme targeted at violent offenders. Furthermore, developments that we have in mind—I hope that this is of reassurance and interest to, and has the support of, my noble friend Lord Longford—include specially designed programmes for women prisoners and integrated regimes for all prisoners which relate offending behaviour programmes to their day-to-day experience.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Plant. To focus solely on retribution denies the humanity and dignity of both offenders and victims. We believe that punishment is a moral necessity to signal society's disapproval, but that is a component and not the entirety. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that we must focus on changing the behaviour of offenders. That is particularly so with young offenders whose offences account for a quarter of all crime in this country. We have to do a good deal more than we have done in the past. We must be much more positive in dealing with youth crime and drug offending, as I mentioned a few days ago.
I agree with your Lordships that much anti-social behaviour and petty offending is born of selfishness, thoughtlessness and boredom. Often young offenders do not appreciate the effect of their behaviour. We want to make young people accept their responsibility, understand the harm that they have done and focus their minds and hearts on the fact that they cannot behave irresponsibly forever.
The Thames Valley Project is an example of the Government's strategy for tackling youth crime. The reparation order to be introduced in the Crime and Disorder Bill is designed by the Home Secretary deliberately to make young offenders see close up the effect of their acts on others so that they can learn a lesson from experience and be less inclined to act thoughtlessly in future. The Thames Valley project is simply an example of what the Home Secretary has in

969
mind. We believe that the reparation order can be an extremely fruitful weapon that will have your Lordships' support in due time.
We are particularly concerned about the family and the quality of relationships between parents and children. The level of parental supervision has led us to the conclusion that courts must have the opportunity to make a parenting order. Parents need assistance, support, guidance, and possibly direction sometimes, to provide effective supervision of their children.
We are replacing cautioning which has become wholly abused with a statutory final warning scheme. Young people who have a final warning will be referred as of necessity and direction to a youth offender team for a programme of intervention to address their offending behaviour with the intention of preventing further crime. There is such a multiplicity of agencies to deal with different aspects of the behaviour of young people that they need to be co-ordinated and brought together.
We know that drug abuse is at the heart of much crime, particularly for young people. That is the purpose of the anti-drugs co-ordinator, Mr. Hellawell, the chief constable. That is why we wish to have a drug testing and treatment order in the new crime and disorder Bill. The courts have been powerless to deal with those who are addicted, beyond the short stay that some of them have in penal institutions.
We need welfare to work extended to those who leave prison. Getting and keeping a job is the best means of keeping away from crime. That is why, under welfare to work, all young people leaving prison will have direct access to the new deal for young unemployed, with intensive job search assistance and a guaranteed place on one of the new deal options.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, that unemployment is a significant contributory factor to crime. Those who are excluded from work lack the discipline which everyone wants. They lack the opportunity for self-advancement which everyone needs. They lack, as I said the other day, self-respect and self-regard—two essential tools if they are to avoid crime. That is why we have set up the new social exclusion unit in the Cabinet Office to attend to
970
those deep, underlying problems. We will be drawing together welfare to work, educational disadvantage, public health, social housing, youth justice and job creation.
The influence of the family, as I said a moment ago, is critical. It is central in our belief. That is why the Home Secretary is bringing together Ministers from different government departments to take forward the development of policies in support of the family, finding out where the greatest problems arise, examining the effectiveness, coherence, and therefore expense, of existing policies and looking at the best aims and means for the Government to adopt.
I cannot stress too firmly our commitment to the victims. Within six weeks of taking office, in fairly straitened financial times, we increased the annual grant to Victim Support by £1 million. It is now £12.7 million per year.
Delays, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred, are a dreadful vice, not just for those who are incarcerated pending trial; they are a monstrous abuse and insult to victims who also remain in a different uncertainty. I endorse his view. We wish to press forward with the victim's charter. Many of its standards of service have been incorporated into the criminal justice system. Performance is being monitored. We believe that victims have a moral right to information. If charges are to be dropped, if cases are to be adjourned, the victims, the complainants, the witnesses, need to be fully informed.
Concern for others is a value shared by many different faiths. Some call themselves humanists, some Christians, some have no formal adoption of any particular religion, philosophical or moral stance. I hope that I have demonstrated briefly how the Government's approach reflects the essence of those values which my noble friend has so ably championed. If my noble friend Lord Longford is asked, on his frequent visits to prison, what the Government intend to do, how will they be different, what changes will we see in the next five to seven years, I hope that I have offered at least one or two acceptable suggestions as to what my noble friend might legitimately say to those who are the victims of crime and those who are the perpetrators of it.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  Benefits: Uprating Basis
  Benefits: Uprating Basis
  Ministers' Private Financial Interests
  Ministers' Private Financial Interests
  Minister for Competitiveness in Europe
  Minister for Competitiveness in Europe
  Reactor Grade Plutonium
  Reactor Grade Plutonium
  Depleted Uranium: Weapons Use
  Depleted Uranium: Weapons Use
  Juvenile Offenders: Remand in Secure Accommodation
  Juvenile Offenders: Remand in Secure Accommodation
  War Memorials in Disused Churches
  War Memorials in Disused Churches
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Detention Costs
  Thefts from Mail
  Thefts from Mail
  Duty and Tax-free Shopping: Revenue
  Duty and Tax-free Shopping: Revenue
  Cabinet Office: Committees
  Cabinet Office: Committees
  Cabinet Office: Committee Business Guide
  Cabinet Office: Committee Business Guide